 We're on. So this is the development review of Walter Burlington for December 7th, and we are a hybrid meeting in Zoom and in person here at the works. So I'll just go through briefly. Do we have other attendees out there? Yes. So there are people out there who are interested in this, so I would say we take up items that they are on in the agenda in that order. And when we quote each agenda item, we ask the participants either come up to the table if they're here or to let Scott know and he will send them to the participants in the meeting. And we also ask people to provide their contact information addresses as a sign up sheet here and if people are on Zoom, they will give Scott their information verbally. Communications. We actually have a couple of things on the. Let's see what this is on Green Street. We have a letter from the attorneys that was posted online today, but that also came in. We also have a note from the building inspector Kim and Ellie on the same project. That's been posted now too. Is that right? Hers has not been posted. It has just been received. Okay. We can bring that up when we get to that item. And then we also have a note on 278 Main Street. Is this posted? I posted it online. Okay. This is posted on 278 Main Street on the TDM. We'll bring that up. Okay. Just curious. You could be Brad if you want to join the Zoom on your tablet. No, no. We're complicated that way though. I'm not trying to be more complicated. Okay. Anyway, so here we are on the agenda. The first item on the agenda, we do have one item where they've asked for deferral or reclusive. The 43 Star Farm Road has requested continuance to a future meeting. It's not a public hearing item, so we don't need to specify a date certain, but we'll aim for January. And do we have to vote on that? Yes, you did. Okay. We need to vote to allow deferrals. So when that comes up, but we will be looking to defer 43 Star Farm Road. Yes. When that comes up. Minutes. Are you actually didn't see if the minutes posted? Are there minutes posted? Minutes are posted online on the DRB website for the November 16th meeting. Okay. Any comments? Let me know. Consent agenda. We don't have a consent agenda tonight. So the first item is 4850 Green Street is the applicant. Assume the applicants online. So MSK attorneys, I assume that you, Liam, you can speak. If anyone else wants to speak to this item, raise your hand, please. And the zoom function. Can you hear me? We can hear you. I don't, I don't see, you know, I don't see my video. Do you see video? We just see an MSK attorneys letterhead. So Liam, do you have something you want to present? If you do, I need to make you a panelist. Otherwise, we'll leave it as vocal. Well, I wouldn't like to be sharing my screen at some point. So you would. All right. Well, then hold on a moment. I'll make you a panelist. Is there anybody besides Liam, who is going to be speaking on 4850 Green Street? Potentially. The owner Lee Bessonette is online. Are they online for the meeting? I see a single phone number. I'm only asked because we need to swear them in if they're going to participate. And they, somebody on the phone, we don't know if that's, who would that be, Liam? It's Lee Bessonette. He said he was, had logged in and could hear, but not speak. So I don't know how he's showing up on Scott's. Well, so I will enable this phone number to be taught if not raised their hand. But let's check who's on the phone. So if you're the one caller, you can speak to us now and let me know if you're associated with this item or not. Hello. Yes. Are you? I believe it's Bessonette. Okay. Okay. So we have two people, Lee and Liam. Can you both raise your right hand and swear that you will tell the whole truth on the pain and penalty of perjury? Yes. Okay. So this is a appeal of a zoning application denial for a fire escape. So typically the city would go first and present what they have to say on this. It would be you, Mary, right? That would be me. Yes. Okay. I was the project manager for that. Yes. Yes. I received first a notice from a housing inspector or a zoning inspector that I should expect a zoning permit application because the building inspector had made an inspection of a fire escape repair for which a building permit was issued in 2020 and she felt that it had, or she ruled that it had exceeded the scope of the building permit and advised the property owner that a zoning permit was needed. Subsequently, we received that application as the property alterations included structural changes and the property is listed on the Vermont State Register of Historic Places. I scheduled the review by the Design Advisory Board, which has authority and review over changes to historic properties. That case was heard by the Design Advisory Board who voted unanimously to deny the application and advise staff to do so for the reasons that I've articulated in the staff report, among them issues to safety and security of the property relative to Article 6 and relative to Article 5 historic buildings and structures. So staff administratively denied the permit for the repairs to the fire escape and the appeal was filed in a timely manner. Can you, I know it's in the report here, in terms of, I thought the issue centered on changes to the stair that were made when they reconstructed it. Is that not accurate? The fire escape was, alterations were made to the fire escape that changed not only the visual characteristics, but exceeded the scope of the building permit for repair and included new structural support for which no plans were provided to the building inspector nor had she reviewed them and approved those plans. Her reasoning is included in the communication that was provided to board members this afternoon. It did require a zoning permit for alterations to restore a building. Mary, can you describe the alterations just so we're on the same page on the scope of what the city believes the alterations were? I did make a site visit upon the submission of the zoning application. It was evident first that at least part of the second set of risers in the entire third floor landing had been replaced. There are new structural supports that are quite different from what was installed in 1984. There was evidence that there had been some repairs made to the lower section of risers. There's a great deal of wood putty that fills in where the boards were repaired. But most notably, there is a support iron column that now descends vertically from the third floor through the roof of the first floor porch to an angle iron attached on the side of the edge of the porch. It was clear there's porch deflection from carrying the weight because the porch skirting is bowed where the new support column comes down to that first floor porch. When I visited the property, the metal was in its original state. It was not painted as it is in the photographs provided by Lee and Martin. Just to my understanding that part of the issue here were the changes to the historic nature of the building that these elements that you just described were antagonistic to the existing architect of the building. We'd like a better way to put it. I strictly use the regulations, the language of the regulations for section 548 for an analysis of the changes that were made. I'm trying to understand if my changes were not consistent with the original, they altered the original architecture of the building. The repaired, and I use air quotes there, the repaired fire escape was not consistent with the original 1984 building permit and exceeded that building permit that allowed for repair, but it did in fact introduce new negative impacts to a building that has historic elevation, and my assertion would be introduces new structural issues relative to the puncture of the first floor porch. So it's not only visual, but very much concerned with the integrity of that first floor porch. And this denial has nothing to do with the theoretically unpermitted third floor unit. It's very difficult to tease apart the details of this. I always do my research relative to building permits and minimum housing permits. It's very evident that the first thing I discovered was a notice of violation in 1974 where the city official quite plainly declared that the third unit could not be permitted and they were to vacate and eliminate the unit, and that letter was sent certified mail. There's no evidence of any remedy through the zoning process after that. We have no evidence at all that the third unit has ever been permitted. Okay. Any other questions for the city from the board at this point? Liam, I suspect you have some comments you want to make. Yes, good evening. Scott, could I share the screen? Yeah, go ahead. So, I've submitted a letter. I hope you all have it. This is just an enlarged version. Sure, that's on page two. This is what was built in 1984 and has been existing since 1984. It was built pursuant to a building permit issued by the city. This building permit here issued in 1984 to the prior owner of the building. The current owner bought it when this was in place. You can see that the staircase that was there, that was approved, is what has been, was constructed. My client, on his own volition, without anybody asking him, thought that he wanted to repair what is now this at least 25-year-old, 35-year-old staircase and make it safer. So he went to the building staff and the building inspector and said, you know, what do I need to do? Do I need to get a building permit? He obtained a building permit to repair and replace portions of fire escape with matching materials in the same footprint. That's what the permit was for. And that, when the work was done, though, there were two additions that the person constructing or doing the repair of the staircase added that they thought that it would help the integrity and the stability of the staircase. The first is that there was this additional beam that came out from the building on the interior side of the landing. And the second, even what Mary was talking about, there is encased in what is now wood this post that came down from that additional beam down to the porch. It has been encased in wood and painted and obviously, if you stand away or walking down the street, the post does not look much different than the posts that are already on the porch. The remainder of the changes were as permitted. Yes, there were portions replaced here, the decking and the railing, and you can see that there's a new little rail coming down here and some repairs. But it was a replace and repair of the repair and replace portions of the fire escape. That is what was authorized and that was what was permitted. Jeff, can you pull up the application again? Were there any plans or designs that went along with the application itself? The most recent repair and replace? Yes. No. Okay, so that new beam was not indicated on the application. Is that correct? That is correct. That was determined by the contractor when they were there that they thought that that would help stabilize this portion here. You know, our position is clear is does this fit within the context of what is in the building permit? Repair and replace portions of the fire escape with matching materials in the same footprint. We don't believe that the addition of this post and this beam here are sufficient changes to this pre-existing approved fire escape that will require a zoning permit. But if it does, then what we will do is we'll go and remove this post and this post and then we'll be in compliance. What's unfortunate is that the remainder of the staff member gets into issues that are well beyond the scope of whether or not this one beam and that's one post requires a permit that makes this property inconsistent with the historical nature of the building. We certainly understand that if the building didn't have this existing fire escape for the last 35 years, that the addition of it would not be permitted. But it was permitted by the city and has been there for 35 years and the changes that were added by my client voluntarily were in an attempt to increase the safety and stability of the property. We're concerned that all of these other issues that have gotten raised here which are well beyond the scope of what this permit is about. If the board starts upholding or getting into violations when people come in voluntarily to upgrade safety, the message will go out to the landlord community, don't do anything because you'll get punished. Every good deed was going to go get punished. So we think that the issue is limited. Does the board believe that the addition of these two elements are such that it requires a zoning permit? If it does have those two elements met the requirements of the zoning permit, do they really change those two additions? Really change the historic character of the building. And if it doesn't, fine, but if it does, then the remedy to that is to remove them. The remedy isn't to determine that the whole structure should come down because that structure was improved and both the structure and repair have been done on their products. Do you want to answer any questions? I just wanted to say one thing, just a response to one of your comments, Liam. I think we get people coming in all the time and like the post you have on this port, people say, well, gee, we want to replace them with a four by four pressure treated post because it's going to hold up better. And that really doesn't change the architecture of the thing. And then we're going to replace the railing with a two by two pressure treated this and that. And so that's really, I don't think somebody is saying, gee, you can't make a repair, Liam. And I think that's an unfair kind of comment on your part. What they're saying is... I certainly am not the repairer. It's the question that the staff report was suggesting that the entire fire escape should be... It was classified as... If we added a new staircase to this building and that we have an illegal property and therefore if we remove the apartment on the third floor, then we wouldn't need the staircase and then we wouldn't need to repair. That's the sort of concern that we have. We certainly understand that we are bound by permits and my client thought that they were trying to make this a safer fire escape and that the two additions that were there were not so material as to change the historic character of the building by those two additional... And one might say there's other ways to achieve that same thing without those posts. And he could have been a little bit more sensitive to those concerns when they were coming up with it. Anyways, let me ask if there's other comments or questions from the board for the attorney. Yes, Caitlin? I have a question. Is there an engineer report or anything about the structural integrity of the previous stair or indicating the need for the beam as opposed to in question? Yes. I apologize. I did not... Give me just a moment. I apologize. I'm truly sorry. I thought I had opened this letter that we had gotten. I can't seem to find it right now. Can you summarize it, Liam? Liam, can you summarize the letter that you were looking for? Yes. Our client did engage in a structural engineer to go and look at the property. If I share a screen again, I have it here now. And it just says that the request of Mr. Bisonette, CIS, inspected the existing fire escape system located at that apartment, the purpose of the letter was to observe the fire escape instruction and to pretend professional opinion as to whether the removal of the existing would post and when he saw it obviously the metal post interior was covered up by wood would compromise the structural integrity he says upon my on-site inspection it's his opinion that the removal of the post located on the north edge of the upper flight below would severely compromise the existing support system. But that was... So he believes that if we removed that that it would have an effect obviously if the board says that it has to be removed then we will do that and engage the engineer to see if there's a different way to resolve the problem without putting in the post but you know from a visual perspective which is what we're talking about you know I think walking down the street you would not that that additional post does not stand out at you as being the thing that obviously affects the historic character you know we recognize that the staircase is not the prettiest staircase but it's been there for 35 years Tablin? Is that another question probably for Mary I want to make sure that I'm clear on the city's position are you asserting that the stairs were not the stairs that were repaired and replaced were not legally installed in the first place aside from the third floor unit I think that is clear the unit was not legal but the staircase itself is your stance that the stairs as it is if a forward place was not legally permanent Thank you for your patience I'm trying to take minutes at the same time there was no zoning permit for the erection of the staircase in 1984 I did find evidence of a building permit so I think that I know that our departments are working towards knowing what each other is doing especially since we are now coexisting in the same building but in 1984 I'm not surprised the building inspector would require or approve a building permit for a staircase so it's clear the staircase was erected in 1984 with only a building permit similarly in 1977 a meter was added for the third floor the electrical inspector typically did not check and see what zoning permits had been issued so there is evidence certainly since 1974 that there was a unit there but no zoning permits for an expansion of habitable space no zoning permit for a third unit no zoning permit for this exterior staircase but I guess I would say to some of that the 15 year it becomes grandfathered, isn't that true the question is that there was a notice of violation issued for the apartment but not for the stairway for the apartment so the stairway would not have building permit in 1984 was not a fire escape for a third unit it specifically says a fire escape to the third floor so I'm just saying the staircase would be permitted only because it's grandfathered at this point if nothing else we know it's been there more than 15 years I am looking at the zoning ordinance online that was in place in 1984 I do not believe there was a requirement for a zoning permit for the addition of a staircase like that in 1984 can you marry, can you point me to a provision in the applicable 19 it's the zoning ordinance started in 73 continued until 1992 I don't believe there's anything in that ordinance that would have said that you needed a permit for a staircase that you would now be required to have so they got a permit they had plans it was built in accordance with the plans it's been there for 35 years I this whole issue of the staircase not being approved really are already herring to what the issue is before us which is whether the addition of these two structural items changes our character of the area whether they go beyond the zoning permit if the zoning permit is required whether they are it changes our character of the building in that 73 ordinance was amended and revised many times before the 90 it was at a 94 zoning ordinance so I don't have either of those or any of the amendments in front of me so I can't answer that question about whether a zoning permit was required on the record we just want to show that while there was not a zoning permit one may not have been required because you don't know whether one was required and I don't know whether one was required I think Mary both mentioned the building permit I don't think we have that I know you showed it but could you submit the building permit and also the engineer report yes I'll be glad to do that if I can I'm still working on that new uploading system it's not easy to work my way through but I'll do that we do have the building permit from 1984 Jeff that's but that's not what you're looking for that's that's posted online the building permit is from 84 sort of feel like we're getting a picture of the issues and what's going on with this at this moment are there other questions from the board for either the applicant or for the staff and does the owner have anything else he wants to add to the conversation here yes yes this is leave it to that when we went about doing this it was just going to be a straight repair the pole was not even we hadn't thought of a pole and into the repair the contractor said to me this would be much safer if we could get the pole going down to the ground so it was at that point in time I made the decision that is I'd rather go safe than sorry so it's difficult that in the other point Mary had mentioned about root penetration concerned about root penetration that penetration was dealt with the same way as you would on any other root penetration it was dealt with I went through it with the contractor he has no concern as far as I guess it's water perhaps I'm not sure but those are my two points thank you this is Japan did you consider when the contractor gave you that opinion that you needed to stop and go seek a determination to whether or not it required a zoning permit no never answered my mind I didn't know this was going to happen I am concerned that we had experiences where we get into do the work and ask for forgiveness later to feel a little bit like one of those it was a change that was not described in the building permit and now we're all here struggling I don't know if anyone wants to take it down but you're putting up in this bill position of reviewing something after you've done the work yeah I absolutely not again it was something that was done when they started taking the decking the decking off and the weight of the stairs being tied through that top deck he said again he said that it would be safer if we had this going down to the building instead of those 45 going in that that it's been up for 35 or 40 years and you know it worked looking back on it I don't know I've got a professional telling me it's going to be safer I'm looking at it I made a decision in the moment to do it I I just want to make I believe that that was what happened I think was probably an innocent process I would suggest that there were probably other options at that moment to address those concerns that would have been within the context of what was already there rather than changing it you know and I understand that there are a lot of that kind of conversation and result happens frequently and now I had this was actually quite it made it more expensive to do it I went through it is this the only way he was convinced this was this was the way to make it for my understanding it's better always from what support I got out of this you're much better making the support going straight up and down than on an angle and so is there any other way if there is if there is that particular contract you didn't add anything that people want to add at this point questions from the board or attorney or from staff or you know I will add I've got a picture of probably about 25 fire chiefs in Burlington and there is no doubt in my layman opinion that fire chief that I have is the safest one in Burlington they are a little scary sometimes aren't they they can't be it's about people coming down and using it in an emergency it's also about firemen trying to use it during okay I think we've got a clear picture of all this and I appreciate everybody's participation I'm going to close the public hearing at this point and we will probably deliberate at the end of today's meeting thank you so much thanks good evening everybody so the next item our agenda is 278 main street I see the applicant here okay I'll invite you up to the table is there anybody else in the public who's well we have a public out there Bob I've just seen if there's anybody behind me Scott does anybody else who wants to participate on 278 main street here we have Dave Marshall the applicant team okay hi Dave is that it anyone else who wants to weigh in as to 278 main raise your hand please okay so I will ask the applicant engineer and architect to raise your right hand and you swear to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain and penalty of perjury I do okay so looks like a nice project I know sketch plan we were here for sketch plan may have been disappointed in the amount of feedback you got but you seem to be able to persevere and pull together do you want to make a presentation here so thank you everybody for allowing us to present tonight this is a project for COTS at 278 main street which is in addition to their current family shelter there I see some names on the board here that may not have been at the sketch plan so we can go like from the get go or we can just kind of give a synopsis because many people are familiar with it I'm happy to just start from the beginning synopsis is fine okay so just in broad strokes then the building the first couple sheets that you see in the presentation are context photos that give you an idea of where the property is it's at 278 main street it is just east of south union street next to the consolidated communications building and just up from Memorial Auditorium across the street from Edmunds school the building was for many years a YWCA COTS purchased that and created the family shelter there in approximately 2002 and now is proposing to build a 16 unit addition to the building on its north side so site plan here is the architectural site plan just a little bit of color to it we also have a landscaping plan if you want to see plants in more detail but the now this happened before do you folks see a red dot up there we can't see it from here so I have to move to where I can see where I'm pointing sorry I can see it from this side of the room so this is the existing building on the front this is main street going up and down the page here and the addition is proposed on the north end at this point the existing building is a two story building on this portion and an L here the second L was added in 1991 on the YWCA so the addition is located in this position here access to the site is similar to what happens now which is on a driveway along the eastern edge we're proposing a sidewalk along that driveway one of the comments that came one of the comments that was a result of sketch plan that might have actually been here at DRB was the fact that the main entrance to the addition is in this location which just require people to traverse the property from Main Street to here as a pedestrian so one of the things that we've done to delineate between pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic even though this is a driveway here is to create what we're calling a plaza at the main entrance here so that folks pedestrians can access from the sidewalk here and then this will actually serve as a difference in paving a way to differentiate between vehicular traffic and to emphasize that this is actually a pedestrian zone in this location so main entrance to the addition is here the building is permanently first floor approximately 5 feet above grade so we're matching that elevation with the addition so that when one comes in here you're a half level lower than the first floor an elevator takes you to the next half level up which makes this accessible via the elevator we're also matching the second floor of this building which makes it also accessible via the elevator which is something that the existing family shelter doesn't currently have some of the folks may have noticed that there's one stair here there's a very tight site to fit everything on so we're looking for every avenue that we can to keep things compact so circulation works this way there's actually two parking areas there's a a four space location here and five spaces in the rear trash enclosure an approximately same location as it is now this is a covered bike enclosure here for bike storage and then we have a transformer in this location here at the northeast corner of the site the existing consolidated communications building its eastern edge is right here although the property line is right there cost is benefited through an arrangement of the consolidated communications that use this green space as part of the space they have so it will continue that way so one of the reasons that we've landscaped around the addition in this way but some other closely spaced shrubs is because the lower level units here which have full size windows but none the less at a lower level it just acts as a deterrent for folks who might be out here displaying or people out in the green space going up close to the windows to just protect over privacy for those folks there's also an entrance to the building from the rear parking here a covered stair on the comments from from VAE VAE was to maybe reduce the riser trend this is a little bit less steep so we actually have done that so risers are much less than 7 inches and so you can enter here if you come back and park here or your staff you can enter the building in this location so we can proceed through this guide there's a lot of other plans in here that you perhaps don't really need to see other floor plans but we can scroll down to the landscaping plan so it's hard to read the schedule here we have to zoom that in if folks want to see the actual plants that are being proposed if you go back that I think you scroll the other way to get the landscaping okay yeah so the top of the screen is the schedule which lists all the plants there's one thing that was not well coordinated and apologized in this presentation the sidewalk is not being proposed it's part of it exists now we're actually discontinuing that and that shows on our civil plans and on our architectural plans is not being there but if folks want to get into we'd have to zoom in and we could talk about species but we're proposing two Princeton Elms here the three red butt trees here and a sugar maple at the front of the site here and then the rest of these beds and shrubs and those locations if anybody's specifically interested if we can zoom in and look at plant types we can go back to that if folks need more information on that so these are the upper floor plans of the building one thing I can point out at this four level is that there's a common space here on the second floor plan that all residents will be able to enjoy so it could be something like a birthday party or an anniversary party or whatever might happen a potluck for residents who live in the addition can use that community room and that community room on the next floor which if you scroll one more sheet is a terrace at this location so we sort of drive it outside space for residents of the addition go further that's the fourth floor then we should get into the elevations roof plan so building elevations as you look at this the lower left drawing here is actually not exactly what you would see from Main Street because of course the existing two-story building on Main Street actually covers a lot of this this is the hell, this is the section here but as you're looking at the drive and you'll see from the renderings as you're looking at the driveway this is the entrance here that third floor terrace I was telling you about and then here is the elevator whose tower extends up above the roof as required by elevator code but if you look from the west elevation here this is if your back was a consolidated communications building so this is the west end of the existing family shelter this is the original L to it you'll see here the stone foundation this is the 1991 addition we're proposing to remove the gable roof there so the flat roof can continue and connect to the third floor roof of the existing building excuse me, second floor roof of the existing building so one of the things we're proposing here in terms of elevation is that the base of the building that you see here in the west elevation you see a little bit here in the south elevation you see somewhere here in the north elevation we're using porcelain tiles as the cladding so not that it's a direct match to the stone foundation but it sort of relates back to the original stone foundation of the historic building the other materials that we have in elevation here the circulation that you see this is the quarter that links all floors in its first year as well it's in a five percent panel in a circulation column excuse me, to the right of the elevator shaft so that's distinguished as a panel five percent panel and then we have five percent lap siding here and five percent lap siding on these portions of the addition as well so we're a little bit of a change in material here at the top of the west side from the bottom of the east side I think if you scroll further in you'll see some oh no, I was going to say can you go through the rest of the materials on the elevation sure, sorry so here on the east elevation so this would be like a section cut through the driveway that plaza portion that I was talking about would be right in here so from here over is all of this is existing so this is the original brick building the porch that was added to it and renovated in 2002 and then the L that was a later addition to the original building and then this L from 1991 so our work starts at that point and goes to the north so this portico entrance here there's the main entrance to the elevator lobby at that location so this portico entrance is clad in brick and it's the only masonry cladding other than the porcelain tiles of the foundation that you see here the roof that covers the rear stair is suspended on cables at a 45 degree angle to support the roof and and then this is the lap siding here the color that you see here is the fiber cement panel on the stairwell this is metal corrugated metal siding on the elevator shaft the roof slopes to the north so that it can drain onto the flat roof our only other option was to slope it to the south or to the east which doesn't work because it would slope onto the terrace here or onto the walkway as you approach the terrace from the south side so it slopes to the north and as mentioned the port is allowed to be higher than the 47 feet that we're allowed because it is an elevator shaft that brick was, that's a thin brick well yeah, so we're actually just talking about that today so we're working on some actual dimensioning it might still be the thin brick or it might be conventional brick veneer we're still working on what makes the most amount of sense the thin brick is not dramatically cheaper than conventional brick veneer and it's a little bit complicated because we will definitely use conventional brick veneer at the pilasters and the piers here and then I would transition, if it transitions the thin brick would transition above this header here and so we're just working out the details of it and it's possible that we would go back to doing it with all conventional brick but the difference visually will be you won't be able to tell the difference the corners for the we use the corners the only place that I'm aware of in Burlington that uses thin brick and conventional brick in the same building is the Stratos building it's very evident if you look at it that the thin brick from the first floor it's thin brick from the first floor up because they didn't detail the windows any differently so the windows are flushed with the outside because they didn't return the brick which is a conventional detail that would happen with any regular thick brick so here we if you were to zoom in and you'll see on the renderings that we are detailing those corners we're actually focusing on those corners so that even if we have thin brick it will not look like the brick is flush with the window the window will be recessed from the face of the brick the treatment plant is thin brick I don't know if they mix it at all I haven't looked at it closely to see how they did the window returns but if you detail it carefully you can do it so it looks like a regular brick building and if you don't it doesn't so we could move on to the renderings so this first one is bird's eye view of course none of us would ever see it from that viewpoint but what it does show you if you look closely is that the rooftop equipment is shown here so we've modeled the rooftop equipment the condensing units for air conditioning the energy recovery ventilator the ERV is on the roof but when you look at any other rendering that you see here because we have a little parapet in certain locations because of the elevator tower because of the location of the equipment at the central part of the roof you will not see that equipment from any of the typical pedestrian views so more of a from pretty much the same location as these two are one from ground view and one from bird's eye view so you're looking down the driveway here to the addition this is the brick portico entry to the addition the elevator tower at that location and this is even though it's we didn't actually have a model of the existing building so there are windows of course in the ports that don't show there so a little bit more of a close up is you're at the driveway so this is showing the sidewalk where we're adding along the driveway and then you begin to pick up the idea of the pedestrian plaza at the main entrance here so this is the entrance and there's a portico that covers that entrance so that folks that park here are a little under cover to get to the main entrance folks that park from the rear are also under cover at the main entrance and then you can see here the third floor terrace at that location and then a view from the okay if you go back one more since we have it so this is a view from the northeast corner the closed bike storage over here in the back is the consolidated communications building and then of course the existing building here the idea of the porcelain tile base that I described before and this is the roof that's over the stair that serves also the main floor then once again the words I view but from the northeast corner looking back towards the condominium complex that's located directly to the east and consolidated communications on the west this is the green space that is both cotton property and consolidated communications where they share that green space there and the final view is looking from main street as a pedestrian between consolidated communications this building on the left and the existing family shelter here there's an existing stair location this is the L that you see and then stepping back is the addition that we've proposed just an exit stair this one here actually serves as a it can be an exit stair it's off the dining space the family shelter uses and has access to their outside play space so the main entrance is here there's also an exit at the rear that will be maintained as a part of this in fact it's improved into our new stair and there's also a stair within the L that will remain that will take you down if you remember when I said earlier that there's a sidewalk on the site plan that shows up on the landscape plan that sidewalk is not going to be there but there is a door that exits from the existing building to that same space so people have several different ways to get out from the existing family shelter to the recreation space or to use in the event of emergency and we also we went to conservation board last night and got unanimous approval for the project and Dave Marshall gave a great presentation of how all the stormwater systems work and if you're interested in finding out detail about that Dave is here and we can discuss that with our civil drawings in essence we're handling all and more of the stormwater that currently hits the site through underground chambers and infiltration but you can go through all that this is also a lighting plan here that shows foot candles and light fixtures, ballards and ball-mounted lights and so on I wouldn't mind just a brief thing of the retention okay sure it's so yeah I think it'd be better for Dave to do that but just in essence I think it's got if you scroll there one more that's the proposed site plan but there's another sheet that shows the retention tanks there you go on that sheet right there so Dave would you be able to address this Dave Marshall here civil engineer thank you in this particular case this is a busy call I'm going to ask you to kind of envision or try to imagine yourself looking from Main Street into the site north is actually left to the left on this particular plan so Main Street on the right will begin to the property and actually everything under today's conditions trains northly and then north-western so you come in the driveway and you chase the drops of water past the buildings past the parking areas and we're actually proposing to maintain that same flavor of drops of water moving through the site past the proposed addition and the proposed addition again showing darker gray and as you move around the entry and the building itself you actually enter a parking area, a proposed parking area it's a formalization of the existing gravel apartments out there today but under today's conditions actually at the bottom left of this drawing that's where all the drops of water leave under current conditions under a sheet flow scenario where rainfall is heavy enough it basically leads the site and drains on to the consolidated communications property where again about two thirds of the way down through the parking lot there's a catchphrase so at this point in time all we wanted to do as good as consolidated improvements has been to a neighborhood to the COX facility we wanted to kind of return the favor with regard to the stormwater facility and also tell us a great story with regard to compliance with the goals set forth in the state's stormwater management manual which is adopted by the city for small projects of this nature in this big of a case what we're proposing to do is take advantage of the 67 feet of actually occurring silty sand that's on the site that is underlain by a compact till material so we're all finding the water table at 67 feet now but the nice thing about the 67 feet of silty sand that's available on top is that we can utilize that for documentation that is really the number one goal of the state stormwater manual is if you can infiltrate and try to do to implement that so for those properties that have appropriate soils that is the expectation and that's what we've adopted here is this particular system that takes stormwater runoff from the pavement surfaces as well as from the roof of the new addition and on the right hand side of the five cangards that are shown on the left of the proposed building there's what we call an isolated road and that is where the initial slope of stormwater comes in and settles and that's where most of the solids settle out so that the remaining area won't get gummed up with the fines that are being brought in off the surface again that first row is intended to provide treatment but also protection of the remaining areas where we aren't at all taking that water and infiltrating it into the ground so what we've been able to do with sizing this facility is demonstrate as far as the pre-development and post-development study area that we're actually going to be able to contain on-site up to the two-year design of stormwater so in theory it drops a water that comes out of a storm event as 2.3 inches runoff over a 24-hour period would be training on pre-concelerated communications property but with this particular collection and infiltration system we're basically managing all that on properties. It's only when you get into much larger storm events in this bigger case the 10-year storm event that's the design standard for the state again the state of Vermont utilizes a stormwater manual that we are now demonstrating that we have what's leading the site would be not only less volume than what happens under today's conditions but also a less peaceful than what happens under today's conditions so we have a very good story where actually what has been lost over time as far as a great but it's a good, not very good stormwater infiltration soil we're now capturing that and utilizing that as a stormwater treatment practice on property to again be better managed to everybody downstream to this particular property so that's it in a very, very quick nutshell but a very question that I'm having held out Thank you David One question I have so these tanks naturally have a limit so when that 10-year storm hits the tanks are just filled up and then the water just flows over land right? That's great, thank you Any other questions for Dave Marshall on this from the board? So the only other thing that I'd like to bring up in the earlier staff comments from DAB it was pointed out or in fact it might have been the initial comments from staff that we needed to provide cut sheets on materials which we did and I think you have all that in the folder The other question that was there's been some back and forth and some discussion on especially in the last week or so about the transportation demand management plan so hot off the press this afternoon we sent something in and I think that's available for your discussion and I haven't had a chance to see what staff thoughts are about that so assuming that that is an acceptable solution to the TDM then we're all set and if it isn't we need to discuss that further We have it here I forget Mary was this posted off? It looks like the structure there is let's see if I can start that over it looks like the structure is all there for the TDM I looked at that for about 20 seconds before we started this meeting the only thing that looks like an outstanding item that needs to be tied up pertains to the car share under sub-criterion C it establishes an onsite car share requirement one space for every 20 residential units so in this case would be one subject to an agreement with car share and as I recall it basically said you guys are talking about car share Vermont car share Vermont says no we know how we don't want to do it then they don't need to do it but if they are interested in doing it that needs to be tied up and provided on site beyond that it looks like everything else is addressed you're joining CATMOT you'll have your transportation coordinator because you have parking on site you'll do the annual basically parking analysis this looks like the only thing that needs to be tied up unless Ryan has something to add that's it we are talking with car share there are seven cars within two or three blocks currently so we're not certain yet if they're going to have the capacity to add another car in that area or whatnot the other piece is that we do have very limited parking on site to offer tenants so having a car share there pinches a little bit on that so that's where we are in the decision making process car share we're supposed to lessen the need for cars on site that is the point of car share although our units are 100% inclusionary so everybody has income limits property and car shares data actually indicates that folks who have a lesser income are less inclined to use car share very frequently so the usership goes down because you still have to pay per mile per day there's still substantial charge to it so it's an interesting quandary and I actually, just as a comment I found that these zoning regulations there's a piece about reducing your parking based on inclusionary units and then there's also the multimodal corridor so we're laying on these other requirements onto a building that has inclusionary units only so it's a little bit of a rub in the ordinance and I understand you folks don't write those we just go by them quick aside there I think I mentioned that too when we spoke last week there actually is a follow up in them to the current standards in article A basically make it applicable citywide so I think it would be worthwhile for you to pipe in either in person or shoot me something in writing seeking clarity on that for future I think it's the 22nd of this month that the ordinance committee is going to take that up again that's good to know that's where the dirty work happens right I think in the case of trying to provide affordable units that there should be some clarity on that a lot in this project though looks very good are there any questions from any members of the board or the applicant or engineer I can't see everybody else who's here but maybe you want to take that down Scott again Bob I'm disappointed that we don't have questions to grill you we try to anticipate most of them it looks like a very good project it's just impressive I think in terms of the amount of facilities and support that go into these affordable units it's good okay unless there's any other questions from the board anything you folks want to add we will close the public hearing on this thank you deliberate tonight I think and that will be on zoom as well yeah we've been doing it on zoom right have we no oh we're not doing it on zoom sorry you can be here for it if you would like if you want to okay thank you next item is 321 Manhattan Drive established short term rental is the applicant here for this one Sam Gardner can you guys hear me is there anybody else who wants to speak on this item besides Sam if you'd like to speak on this item raise your hand in the zoom and enable you to speak looks like we have a crowd of Sam okay Sam do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain and penalty of perjury yes okay looks pretty straightforward I think the a lot of questions are on this but would you like to make a presentation what you want to say on this I'm just applying for one of the units where I did I've been in practice no and it looks like it meets all the conditions I didn't see anything changes you're making to the site the conditions yeah hey I'm curious was this ever attempted to do as a consent item Brian I'm just curious I'm curious too okay okay it looks pretty straightforward I think in terms of the site plan and what you're doing and it's a higher density residential district which I'm more comfortable with I have to say any questions from the board for the applicant on this project okay I think it was pretty straightforward I think it looks good we will deliberate tonight unless there's anything questions do you have Sam or anything you want to add okay we're going to close this hearing thank you so the next item was 43 star farm road we need a motion to defer this to a date uncertain yeah just defer it to a future date I have a pencil then for January meeting date but again we have Alicia DiMaria with her hand up Alicia that's a Alicia did you want to say anything I thought the plan tonight was to defer to January notice though I was just gone and the event that this was going was going to go through that was a request from the that was a request from the um I want to say engineer the applicant for this not you I'm spacing out his name requested to follow yeah yes okay can I have a second on the motion okay chase discussion all in favor Jeff are you in favor okay okay so it's unanimous thank you so the next one we have is 27 Lakeview Terrace the applicant here for that yep and uh Sean Kelly is involved as well I believe can you hear me we can hear you Jay and Sean are you okay anybody else who's going to speak on this besides okay so before you before you get Jay I need to swear you and show an end you swear to tell the truth and hold truth under the pain of penalty perjury okay the floor is yours so uh thanks so much for your time and uh finally uh being able to get before the board so uh thank you so um our plan here is to construct a uh a three foot high retaining wall at the western border of the property of 27 Lakeview Terrace um as you know it's that a steep embankment and it intersects with the city property yeah thank you Scott um yeah and that's that's the configuration uh we're we're showing and in addition uh we're wanting to put a patio in uh had a gas fire that uh that which which further growing will be forthcoming to depict the dimensions of the offset of the property line so um we uh we were requested to get a geotechnical report analysis done I reached out to Sanborn Head uh and Sean Kelly did that work um and we now submitted that for uh review and comment on the BRB which we did receive staff comments last week so uh there's not much more uh for me to say and we're here Sean can take us through the geotechnical analysis um if you'd like to do that uh just fill the details and do the site exploratory and ordering so we do understand what's going on here and I think the key for us is homeowners and property owners and I know that it's sort of the saga along this uh this slope is you know you I don't have the measurements you've only been there a little over a year but the slope continues to slope up and this minimal retaining would allow us to preserve our property line in the fashion that's usable and also really protects and preserves the top slope of the city property so I think there's a mutual benefit without question and I'll let Sean expand on that if you'd like us to do that let's see if this question is supported I did look at uh Google Earth I was going to get back to that and I see that this is pretty much what's been done on several properties along Lake View Terrace and it looks I was concerned about the slope and it looks like the other it looks pretty similar in terms of the topography between this and the other properties that's correct it is there's a few neighbors north of me including my next door neighbors and then I think there's one or two further north that have similar situations and have done similar things are you doing any tree clearing as part of this no there's no trees on our property surprisingly aside from heteros so it's just grass that sort of just terminates to the top the city slope which is heavily vegetated and has trees and a big brush and we're not looking to really disturb any of that we would be doing all of this work east of the property like really going back there with a small back actually there'll be areas of words and work and really pulling this material back setting the base installing this concrete block wall with geotech retainment and then back going it's not it won't be very complicated yeah I thought the geotech report was pretty straightforward are there any questions from the board for the applicant or have more questions on the for the engineer on this I think the one comment I saw was in terms of the setback I guess for the patio and I think you indicated something that had dimensions on that yeah I couldn't get that done in time but I'll certainly get it to you shortly which will show the proper setback so patio and the property line it'll be a more detailed view of this site plan basically with that point on it that's correct I believe it says it's a propane fire pit but that's probably all the fuel will be right there with it there'll be no buried lines I assume you know I would I would probably bury a line to just the that would be the northwest corner of the house just so there's not a tank out there but it would be that's about uh I don't know I think that's about maybe 17 18 feet away and out of curiosity is that preferable to do not have natural gas on that street there is natural gas on the street but the propane I hadn't considered bringing natural gas out to the front but it's something to consider because it is in the basement looks like it didn't project hey I think we're seeing this as pretty straightforward Jay really appreciate it thanks so much okay let's see if anybody else has questions or whatever we're gonna close the public hearing thank you we will probably deliberate we will deliberate um shortly on this one more item on the agenda thank you okay so I can step off right yes okay Sean thank you for attending and thank you all thank you so the only other item on the agenda is 81 Dunder Road which is a follow-up on the permit we have a beautiful photo of a fence if you care um speak with the applicant this is just a follow-up this is the follow-up yeah looks like a beautiful fence there thank you and I think that was really what we're trying to see any comments or any feedback how is it working with the fence okay any questions from the board for the applicants here well we appreciate your coming in Jonathan and so Brad we might have some folks looking to speak to this item oh we do okay I see folks in the queue if you'd like to speak to this item raise your hand please otherwise you don't have to okay Tom Walsh has his hand up okay Tom uh hello do you have anything you want to comment or add or questions well I just participated tonight out of respect for the process in case you had any questions so I appreciate the fence it has private seats and it's so it's doing what was hoped it would do defenses make good neighbors okay we'll see what happens over time any questions for the applicant or the neighbor from the board no okay um we appreciate both of you being here and know the long process and hopefully it'll generate more success thank you thank you all thank you so that is the end of our agenda so with this we will close the hearing