 We need to approve minutes from May 7 and June 18 May 7 it was Dan Jack Roger and Kate were in attendance that evening Mr. Chair I make a motion to approve the minutes of May 7 2018 excuse me Kevin you weren't among those folks I just identified Mr. Chairman I'll make the motion I'll make the motion to approve the minutes of May 7 as printed I'll second we have a motion by Jack and a second by Dan any discussion amongst those four individuals who qualified this adopt the minutes hearing none all those in favor of motion please signify by raising your right hands the May 7th minutes have been adopted we also have June 18th Dan Kevin Jack and my and I were in attendance Kevin would you like to make a motion I'll make that motion for the for the most recent minutes I'll second the motion by Kevin second by Jack all those in favor please signify by raising your right hands oh you are you are okay sorry right you appeared as I was going through that so minutes from June 18th have been adopted the next item on agenda is conditional use site plan and design review at 27th School Street okay it doesn't appear that there's anyone here at this moment to address that application so we're going to skip 27th School Street and move to zero Murray Hill Drive the applicant is John Ken Senegal owner of the properties the Murray Hill homeowners Association who's here to speak on the application so my name is Eric Bigelstone I have a resident of Murray Hill I'm also the president of Murray Hill homeowners Association okay Eric before you continue is there anyone else who wants to be heard on this matter if so please raise your right hand you saw me swear the evidence you're about to give on the matter under considerations the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you so again I'm president Murray Hill homeowners Association Joan and Ken Senegal were asked by the board who there are many members here of the board to help us with the process of applying for this permit they are the owners of Murray Hill development which manages a lot of the property up there they're also the people who first developed Murray Hill over 30 years ago case you're wondering who they are so I don't really have much to add to that other than let them take over and provide the information that you may need does it is the board of the homeowners Association in support of this application yes we are yes thank you like to also add that overwhelmingly majority of the residents at Murray Hill are in favor of it as well we did have a vote and there was lots of support for it as well you can if you're as the applicant yes that would customarily be the case my name is Ken Senegal we have the Senegal 420 Murray Hill drive Montpelier just moment we have a easel that will facilitate thanks right we just have a couple of brief comments we've received the staff report and we are essentially in agreement with the entirety of the report we're proposing take a designation that was placed on one of the plot plans which identified what one at Murray Hill as being reserved for common land we would like to have that designation removed and we would like to once you start taking evidence on the individual items in the staff report when we reach the appropriate point we'd like to focus on the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 1 1983 and because I know that you receive copies of those by email but we thought you some of you may not have printed them out and brought them with you so we have copies that we would like to just hand out to members yeah just one thing we wanted to add in addition to Eric's remarks as we personally as the former developers at Murray Hill have no interest in this lot ourselves we are long past the time where we want to do any development any building we're doing this on behalf of the association of which we are members and because of our long history that we have no interest in a lot ourselves so once she's passing that out just to give you some context Murray Hill was started the first permit hearings were held in January of 1983 we went through sketch plan review which you still have then we went through a process known as conditional review back then and we were seeking at that point in time approval for 75 units they were the units were a combination of building lots or people would purchase their own lot and build their own home and condominium homes which we initially intended to sell the right to build those and ended up actually building them ourselves lot one was approved on July 5th 1983 and that's indicated in your minutes and we also brought copies of the actual zoning permit signed by the city officials if you need that for your records but the original plan for lot one was that it be a building lot just like any other law that we were developing and there were no issues raised about that lot during any of the hearings leading up to the original approval and so lot one became we had the legal right to sell the lot and someone could build on it however Joan and I had one of our major goals at Murray Hill was to stay out of the metal land and we did not like lot number one because we felt that it extended farther into the metal land than we wanted it to but we also recognize the economic reality that we were doing a big development by molecular standards there was lots of risk involved a lot of unknowns on whether though that would be strong enough market to support that development so we decided to satisfy our own interest in not building in the metal further ourselves that we would give this approved lot to the homeowners association and that it would become common land but because it had been approved as a lot that the association would treat it as one of its units so that if they ever wanted to raise money it would have the ability to sell that lot to raise cash so we having gotten permits for lot one along with the other units that we proposed initially we returned to the Planning Commission on October 1 1984 a little over a year after getting lot one approved and we told the Planning Commission we have decided to forgo our right to build on lot one we're going to deed it to the association and the association has agreed to take ownership of that lot as common land and that the association at some point in time might decide to develop the lot and it's now reached that point so this this sounds like a bit of silliness as I go through it 35 years later but that's what we did we got a permit to build on a lot and said we really don't want to build on that lot we're going to give it to the association and that's what we did so when we get to the appropriate point in the proceedings I'd like to pull out the October 1 1984 minutes and go over with you the exact wording of the motion and what it was the Planning Commission intended to approve with respect to the future of lot one thank you I have some couple questions received an act 250 permit for this project we did excessive ten acres did the act 250 permit address lot one the act 250 permit proved lot one along with 74 units in July of 1983 but actually 50 permits customarily account for all the acreage within the developed parcel so if you had a hundred acres and you had 42 acre lots act 250 permit would account for what the developer was going to do with the remaining 20 acres right so how did the act 250 permit address lot one initially it granted a permit for lot one and then just as we did with the Planning Commission we went back to act 250 we sent a cover letter to Ed Stanick the district coordinator we have a copy with us this evening and in that cover letter we explained that we had decided not to build on lot one but we were reserving our rights to renew the permit application to restore lot one to be a saleable lot so when the act 250 permit was written they identified it as including 75 lots which included lot one even after we amended it saying we're just we're reserving the right to build on lot one but we don't intend to build on it they still when they issued the permit they said it was for lots one through I believe it was 48 we're applying for a phase so they identified it as a lot even after we informed them we would be conveying it to the Association and it appears on the survey is filed with act 250 it's always there is one of the original 75 units they approved the the area that's shown on the original plan it's called common land that abuts upper Main Street and it's called 4.327 acres yep it's to the it's the south side of the drive entrance way yep does that include or exclude lot one that includes the I'm looking at the as built drawing that the city approved in 1997 as being what was built at Murray Hill and it identifies the common land as 4.041 acres one is 0.266 acres so the number you gave me must be the total of those two I see a lot one was in that common land mr. Senegal there's a microphone underneath the map yes so that's that's creating the noise it's the abrasion of against the microphone thank you so map see map C is the when was titled to this lot today to the homeowners Association 1986 February of 1986 because we had to clear some mortgages before we could convey the common elements and this lot was conveyed at the same time we conveyed all the other common elements the sewer the water the drainage system pool the tennis courts the rest of the common land right and hence the reason for the word reserved being put on lot one there was it we're kind of getting into the minute so but I think it's important we get this out there was an exchange between me and commission member a bear about when we went back in October of 1984 and said we don't want to build on a lot we have a permit to build on we want to give it away and she was in favor of approving the application but she wanted clarity on lot one if it stayed on the plan then the developer would have the legal right to sell the lot but if we put some designation on the lot then it would be clear that would be the homeowners property and that we wouldn't be able to sell the lot so there was discussion about what that label lot to be and it was only after the Planning Commission hearing when our surveyor made the changes in the plan to conform with what the Planning Commission had approved that he put the name reserved lot because we weren't able to convey it then we had mortgages and the banks weren't interested in releasing property from mortgage when the development was just getting started and so we waited until we done something about the mortgages and that was about two years after we gave that lot verbally to the association that we executed that deed so it was 1986 thank you any questions from DRB members I was just is there any map that actually depicts lot one as a separate lot that doesn't include the reserved for common land designation yes there they're unfortunately there are multiple maps okay yeah I'll start if I may with the first map I don't think Meredith did they get the original Terry Boyle plan that I know okay they did not I tried I tried to avoid too much confusion in what I was presenting so Joan is quicker than I am so she grabbed the the map and since you asked the question I'll give you okay with other members like a copy of the map you want to just use this one yeah I'll just point out quickly so people can see on the map this is the plan that the Planning Commission approved in July and gave conditional approval to in February of 1983 clarity this is the plan that it gave final approval to in 1983 in July right in July so a lot we're talking about is identified as lot one a little hard to read because that plan was sitting in my file for 36 years it didn't copy well but I think if you look at it you can see that this first one is labeled number one and that there are total of eight houses along that part of the top and then if you flip back to the one that you were just said was the final approved one this is the plan that the was approved in July on July 5th 1983 yes and that lot one is not depicted on that as a separate note is a note it says reserved lot number one so the reservation where we're really getting into the weeds here I'm sorry the reservation was placed on this entire block of common land because we were we were doing two things we were saying we want to reserve the right for a lot one on this plan that got approved and we're also telling the Planning Commission as you'll see in the minutes that Meredith sent you but we want to reserve the right to add two more units we never did it but we were we were very concerned in the early days some I see a lot of familiar faces around the Dias here and some of you may remember that there was a time when there was a whole lot of doubt whether Murray Hill would ever come to fruition and so we we had shared some of that doubt so we we included lot one in the plan that got approved and there's also in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting our reservation of the right to add up to two more units on this what ultimately became common land but it that didn't include you said earlier that it that lot one as it as it's kind of depicted now the like actual lot was approved but it doesn't seem like that's the case it seems like the large common the 4.327 acre common land was lot one with the right to reserve development units for it but the actual triangular lot that we're looking at now it doesn't look like that was approved at least on this map is that correct not back then no but that was approved and then in 1997 the there was a Supreme Court decision referred to the beyond key case and it required that attorneys had to do a do research into whether people whether the development had been received individual homes that received their certificate of occupancy and in order to get that there had to be as built plans to show that the development had been built as the permit said it was to be built all the city health hearings in 1997 and adopted that plan that shows the triangular lot as the as built plan for Murray effectively that became the flat for Murray Hill is that drawing you're looking at okay that a copy of that file as built plan is included in the staff report and that's map C um so the map C items those are attached to my memorandum about talking about how many units are approved for this area of Murray Hill the map regarding the as built plans is attached to the development application so after the one to the second half of the third sheet from the back of the application itself and there's a nice red December 2nd 1997 received stamp on it couldn't get the whole map for you on this one perfect thank you for your explanation and the history it was it was very clear and I still have another question by the good explanation so you shared with us the meeting minutes of October 1984 and Planning Commission member miss a bear asked for the condition that lot one be dedicated as common land etc was that to fulfill a concern or was that to address a concern of the Planning Commission or was that to fulfill the applicant your desire at that time that was our convey our desire let me it wasn't that she was putting the condition on it because she was concerned about open space or visual impact or things like that fair to say it was accommodating your request it really was it was totally accommodating and even the wording of her her motion I don't have the October Planning Commission I can yeah I am definitely to pay for mine during this family thankless job she's just kidding you she keeps poking me and telling you what to say so let me read the the minutes of that October 10 meeting so it's item 5 on page 4 of the minutes and the people do we have the extra copy of the condition that it gets to on page 5 condition 3 all right so you have me telling the Planning Commission I think pretty much what I told tonight we got a permit and didn't want to use it gave the land away and so here's the way the motion is stated she moved for approval of the revised plot plan for Murray Hill development upper Main Street as requested by the developer which will include the following the first two don't apply to lot one and then the third lot number one be dedicated as common land with the title to this land being accepted by the Murray Hill homeowners Association that the reason I want to focus your attention on that as you'll notice in the minutes the motion does not say that the lot one is to be reserved for common land as the notation on the platform shows the motion says that lot one be dedicated as common land with the title being accepted by the home association and the putting the words reserved for common land as I said earlier was after the hearing to try to comply with what the Commission had approved and also to deal with the fact that we weren't going to be conveying that lot until we could pay our mortgages down use the word reserved in connection with that lot we wanted people to understand that we were not going to build on that lot it was not going to be ours so we publicly stated here on what was filed that it was not going to be the developers purview to put anything on that lot so it sounds like the motion addressed your request and it sounds like it also may have answered some community concerns that were being discussed at that time about whether you would develop it that may not be relevant I did actually I might be I don't believe there were no comments from anybody about lot one it was never an issue thank you I have a question that raised so when we're talking about lot one here with these minutes are you talking about just the small triangle are you talking about the four point the total four point something we're talking about the four point yeah three acres the common land so you don't think there was ever any restriction on building additional units within that four point some acres oh no I think they anticipated that we might welcome back and ask them and ask for permission to add more units and what is developers what we were doing by having that inserted in planning commission approvals was putting all of the people who would buy units at Murray Hill on notice that yes you're buying into a development and yes you're buying you're driving by open land but the developer has a legal right to come back and ask for additional units on that land that seems inconsistent with the way the survey was drawn up in 83 where the common land was identified on either side of the the drive but the area that's marked as area number two marked as future condominium units so if if the common land right behind lot two that we'll call lot one for these purposes the four point three I mean if that was designated as as common land that's normally something that's that's not to be developed to just be held in common and open for the development and it was listed differently than this other area of land that you did intend and eventually developed into condos I'm maybe not following the distinction that you're drawing well I actually I'm not an attorney but dealt with permits now and again and actually I I think that it is not uncommon for a developer to say this block of land is common land but I'm going to reserve the right to do certain things on the common land including creating an additional unit but we weren't doing that we were doing the reverse of that we were saying we're sitting here we're holding a permit to build on this land and yet we are telling you we're going to give the land to the association but we want to reserve that right for additional units if this development goes looks like it's going south we want some ability financially to raise additional money and that place all of the purchasers on notice they they had copies of permits and the declaration of covenants conditions and restrictions and the bylaws that the Planning Commission had and that which which were given to all potential purchasers states in there that lot one is one of the units so from day one lot one was identified as one of the units on within the condominium documents that lot one was existed for the purpose of a single family house and it also for the first ten years from 1983 to 1993 the declaration contained a reservation on our part to build to put two more units on the common land so everybody was aware up front and in advance that this is designated to be designated common land but the developer has a right to come back and you know I feel that old defensiveness of having to because I used I was the developer and I was sitting here looking forward telling you this is what we're going to do but now I'm looking back and I'm telling you but we never did any of those things we never built an extra unit on the common land we did it the lot that we said we were going to deed we did it to the association and they own it and I'm only here tonight to because I have some background with this development but we have no we get nothing out of this this is all for the association hope they're lowering your dues for that I think what I'm hearing you say is that at one time it could have been your prerogative to develop that lot as the people who developed the whole of it but by dating it to the homeowners association you ensured that when and if that lot was going to be developed it would be the decision of the homeowners association and no longer of an individual land owner right that's where we are today exactly we are hearing about the will of the homeowners association to make this lot available for sale yeah and in March thank you sorry more than two-thirds of the owners of Murray Hill in fact voted to redesign a lot to make a more saleable and to allow the lot to be sold I think that's a good clarification you do have the history as the individual to kick the whole project off but you are speaking for the homeowner's association's decision thank you questions right I would have just I guess it'd be helpful to I don't know if you read through the staff report that you know there's a suggestion that we go through this Stoke-Lup Highlands analysis and I think what you're the start of this is that this was not a material condition necessary for the approval that this not be a lot and I've heard you articulate why you think that is let's just say we say that this language here dedicated as common land you know on paper anyway seems to say that it's not going to be developed as additional units can you address any of those other factors changes in circumstances changes in law that might justify altering the condition even if it were material well I was actually intending to take the planning commission's motion and go through that with you and we've already done that except which part is that where we feel that the condition has been met yeah the the the point that we hope you will agree with us on is that even assuming that that permit condition had said the notation should be reserved for common land in the motion doesn't say reserved for common land says common land that we believe that the day the deed was signed and title to that lot went from our development corporation to the association that condition as stated by ms. Abert was fulfilled and it did not have any future role the land was conveyed it became common land owned by the association the condition has no ongoing role because what the motion of approval says is that the land be they use the term dedicated but deed as common land to the association that was done so we believe that the stove club Highlands cast doesn't apply at all because of that but but secondly the the stove in the Supreme Court both in Stowe Highlands and then three or four more appeals by Stowe Highlands and then appeals from decisions in Pittsburgh weights feel can't remember where the other one is all the way through the Supreme Court and the court ended up using the act 250 test or to determine whether or not the condition was being changed materially and the first part of the test merit has outlined this and we're in complete agreement with it you talk about page 21 of the staff report 21 of the staff report yeah I think I am Alex page 21 starts at a a through after the requirements for consideration under the act 250 rule 34 okay yeah the first one is if the applicant proposes is the test to determine whether the applicant is proposing to amend a condition that was critical to the issuance of the permit and we're saying no yep and I've understood we've got your explanation for why you say that I'm not I'm just I think that the language dedicated as common land generally means dedicated as common land not for individual ownership and construction of an individual single family house on that land the fact that it was dedicated to the homeowners association doesn't really change that all of the common elements are generally dedicated or generally conveyed to the homeowners association that doesn't mean the homeowners association then has the opportunity to sell additional lots for construction so I think and I'm not I'm just saying a reasonable person could read this condition as saying law one needs to be common land and what you're proposing with the association is proposing now with something different from that so I just like to have some discussion as to if we do disagree with you on that first point and say yes this was a condition that says keep it open as common land whether these other factors might justify altering that condition to allow for it to be sold as a new lot okay so there are a couple of things that I think mitigate against that interpretation the first is that you have a total of over 18 acres of common land yet Murray Hill and none of that says reserved for common land but you have a lot one that uses the word reserved for common land I think a logical interpretation of that is that there must be something special about law one that they would reserve that that using your line of reasoning that would something that should stay attached to this piece of land I guess in perpetuity there must have been something special because why would they distinguish between common land identified as slot one and all of the rest of the common land because the way these associations are set up and we used when we created the when we did the original drafting and then turn them over to our attorney to make them into legal language the system that's set up is that when you create a homeowner's association you establish what its powers and included in the powers of an association it's very good I can't speak for all of them so boy a lot of them that I dealt with over the years are identical to Murray Hill in that the association all of the individual owners voting as a an association have the authority to change the declaration and the bylaws including buying additional land or creating additional units if they choose to do that the Murray Hill association about their declaration and bylaws say it takes I rounded off 67% of the owners have to agree to the change in the declaration and bylaws or you can't go forward with whatever you're proposing in this case the owners were all informed that the board of directors had decided that it wanted to amend the declaration and bylaws to allow the changing of the boundaries of lot one and for it to be sold as a for a dwelling the vote was 60 to one the total so we didn't get full vote from all the owners we ended up 24 votes shy of total but the 60 to one the minimum we were required to get was 57% of the owner 67 okay I stand correct 67% of the owners and no I'm sorry that's right we had to get 67% of the ownership which meant 57 of the 85 family owners had to vote in favor and 60 out of 61 voted in favor so I believe that what was done in setting this up and the recent vote by the association all of this is entirely consistent with the way association homeowners associations have typically been set up in Vermont I just add one thing to that because I don't want to leave people with a perception that because something is labeled common land it only has one use in fact the association through that two-thirds vote can change the use of the common land so that give us some of the authority they have to do what we're doing tonight and come before you all for a permit to do something different but in fact they can do that through their own deck and that's the key this this process deals only with whether or not it complies with the conditions obviously if there was no conditions at all as regarding if there's nothing that said common land anywhere then the association would be free to apply for whatever permits but here there's a condition that says reserved for common land and it's our job to just decide whether or not that condition means anything whether it's enforceable and if it does what it means so the fact that the homeowners association voted in favor of it I mean that's great but that doesn't really answer the question as to the legal authority to alter a condition of a subdivision approval right and we would argue the condition was met when the land was deeded to the association and became common land so but then why did they include the language dedicated as common land if that condition only required it to be dedicated to be conveyed to the association why did it say as common land because they the association owns everything in common that there's no other thing label you could put on a piece of land that the association would own it could have I mean it except that you're now saying it's a it's a deed of a lot that's not common land what it is owned in common by the association that's what the common land is it's just like the sewer system the water system it's all owned in common it's one of the common elements I would like to draw a distinction between the language in the minutes and the language that's used on the final plan language in the minutes says what one be dedicated as common land I dedicated carries the force of permanence in my mind I mean I read think of it that way I think we also may be confusing common land with open land or undeveloped land or undevelopable or held in perpetuity as open land and so I'm just urging us to in our own characterization of our own interpretation but also somehow dedicated as common land was transposed by the time the final map came out and that the annotation is reserved for common land and reserved carries less force to me than dedicated it's reserved for common land reserve your rights and then a reservation of rights is the opportunity to perhaps identify different gifts down in the road now certainly the permitting process in 1984 wasn't as fine-tuned as it is now and so we take language from these minutes dedicated as common land and it ends up on the plan as reserved for common land I think it's clear that that it was anticipated the title would be conveyed to the homeowners association and and that the homeowners association would hold it as common land the way this is Senegal was just explaining that all those other elements that the homeowners association has titled to are common elements to the common land or it's a common system or the tennis courts are it's that's a common element although it's it's an improved element it's still it's doesn't say open okay that's I guess that's the distinction I'm trying to draw so but I think what they're proposing is is to make this to expand lot one and so the reserve for common land that's specific to that little triangle doesn't apply to the remainder of the 4.04 acres was just says common land on the plat yes and that this were to proceed it would require putting some portion of that common land the 4.041 acres into lot one and then selling it for private ownership which is not common land so if that is it no would no longer be common land correct the proceeds would be common ass right but the within the realm of our purview and subdivision approval looking at the use of the land the land would no longer be used as common land it would be until the deed was signed right Kate I think this is an important inquiry and we do need to have a lot of respect for past permit conditions so so to dig around in this is is useful one question I might have of some of you who've served on the board longer than I have is how often do you encounter these kind of you know this this may be perhaps an example of imprecise language or clumsy language or maybe some wires crossed in the effort to codify the intentions of the applicant and the intentions of the planning commission could this be a case where we're we're looking at does that happen sometimes where you just end up with funny words and the intention is clear beyond the words or do you go straight to the straight with the print how how has this this is this is totally unique I have never seen anything exactly like this okay because it goes back to the days Mr. Blakeman was chairman right planning commission and I came on two years after that event but it it would seem to me that we didn't if I had this Bible to work with back then it would be there is in preciseness and probably all of the work that was done by the planning commission we didn't have a DRB then planning so I think that that's probably where we're at in terms of way back when I think I'm trying to reconcile a language with circumstance and you know how do the members feel about the annotation on lot one that reads reserved for reserved for reserved as for reserved for common land do you do the to the members view that as a permit condition well it's not just that it's also the language common land and the remainder of the lot surrounding that because it because if the boundary line adjustment is granted to include that additional triangle we didn't get to adjustment of the slot yet okay okay and there are any conditions about that remaining common land just about other than there's the notation no I mean I guess reading both the 84 approval and this I they seem to be imprecise restatements of each other and so it's it really goes back to a first question I actually had a question Meredith I don't know if anyone has done this as far as a calculation for the total taking the whole Murray Hill area and doing a density calculation is this anything that's offensive if we assume obviously these are in different ownership now these lots but is the total is the total number of units and the total acreage can it sustain these additional developments see so currently because we're talking about amending this plat it's been amended under the old rules so we have the density analysis under the current rules has not been done because technically it doesn't apply what about and under the old under the old rules it's laid out in the memo that I attached when considering whether or not they actually have room for additional units because they have since they got their original approval they have added additional land this new lot will not violate those old density requirements okay that's the short answer well I think that strikes me as the salient point here which is you know regardless of whether we get wrapped up in a Stoke-Club's Highlands test something has changed to which is that there's more land here than was initially on the table so even under the old rules and presuming for no other purpose that you know one of the big reasons why common land is often reserved as open is because of density requirements that land is tied up in the zoning you put units more units closer together and you tie up a certain amount of common land that's that's tied to the the other lots that are sold and here you know it's not offensive to that to have this additional lot carved out so I think that under that does two things one is it changes if we go through a Stoke-Club Highlands analysis it's factual change that wasn't there when this initial permit was granted in this initial condition even if interpreted in the most restrictive manner second it does go to I think your point Ken earlier about you know whether this was an important condition or an essential condition because it does it does allow for this additional development so I mean I think that in some ways opens this I had another sort of procedural point is this that we're on sketch plan right so we're not sketch plan we're not coming to a final decision tonight we're just simply going to give them feedback as to whether if they if they apply if they apply and also whether or not you need more information to make this decision I mean this is a little bit of a historic chase which is why they brought out the the tried and tested team but you know it just it strikes me that if for no other reason that there doesn't seem to be the same pressure on the development of the entire parcel that there once was in this in this development that would allow this additional lot and as far as you know that would lead me to at least conclude that if this was granted it would be granted under that type of analysis which is you know these these lots all come from this common source and for the purposes of zoning in this common plan you know one or two lots are possible but it may be something I don't know if the board is considered as to the size of the lots are done their own density calculations or agree with Meredith's density calculations at least if I presume you're selling this one lot you know not because you're planning on putting a water slide in the pool but for other more important financial reasons which may come up again and if you cut yourself off at the knees by creating one lot that doesn't allow you to create another lot down the road where your children your children's children to create the lot you know that that would be an important consideration that is this a sensible lot one to raise the money that you wish to raise now but two given this calculation does this does this change future considerations I can feel the board of directors sitting behind me as I prepare to make this statement but you know that this lady and I are the ones who said we don't want to build on lot one we want to give it away instead and quite frankly our assumption was it would never get built on if we gave it the association but we always told the association that this law is yours as a nest egg and if you ever get into a financial situation where you want to raise money you can sell that you can go back and get your permits reinstated because we reserved all the rights all the way along so that you will be able to get permits to be able to sell a building lot but my feelings about building more units at Murray Hill haven't changed and we added 14 acres of land to the original Murray Hill that allowed 85 units and we added one unit for the 14 acres well even if a lot of that is in what used to be called medium density which is four units 4.33 units per acre but even if we assume it was one acre zoning as low density used to be that would have allowed 14 more units on that land we didn't do the 14 years because we have always had a vision of Murray Hill as being a place where there's lots of open space and there's lots of undeveloped woodland and you fit the units in now people like Jack Lindley will and Bill will tell you that way in the early days people who lived downtown and looked up and saw the buildings appearing to be on the skyline we're not happy with Murray Hill and they but in general Murray Hill has been successful because we've been we've had the open land we've had lots of woodland and now that the vegetation is taken control we don't have the view issues from downtown Montpelier that we once had but I would I would be personally not I can't speak for the homeowners does you personally I would be happy to see this association amendments declaration to put Murray Hill under the new common interest ownership statute for Vermont which requires 100 percent of the unit owners to agree to the creation of an additional unit so as close as you can get to be creating an impossible situation I think is to say that 100 percent of the owners so whoever really changed our belief we want to see we're leaving the scenes now but we'd like to see Murray Hill preserved essentially as it is into the future and we have if we own one we wouldn't build on it but we don't own it an association is owned it for 33 years 30 some years and they have always had believed they had the right to sell this as a building law and they clearly have the legal right to amend their declaration and bylaws so that if you were to say I don't believe you're going to say this but if you were to say that there is something special about lot one and and that it would have had to come from me because nobody else commented that October meeting it all came from me and I was saying we don't want to build on lot one but if there's something special about lot one that warranted reserving as open land which it isn't it's common land well then literally we could create the association could create another building law immediately adjacent to lot one but on the common land and it would be perfectly okay it would pass muster that way because there is no prohibition against units on the rest of the common land only a quarter of an acre has that prohibition or has that notation label on it so I think we don't want to if you can avoid it create an absurd outcome such as the association feeling that it needs to create a lot on something that doesn't have the reserve tag on it when it when we believe it it's really clear they have the right to amend their declaration and they've done so thank you Ken Roger I just have one question you may have answered this before but how did a lot one go from being a try a rectangle to being a triangle I cannot find any record of how that occurred I can make an educated guess I think Roger you talk about this yeah I'm talking about this this map is a triangle and then on subsequent maps and the proposal before us the application before us as it has a triangle I can answer that question not from factual basis but this is a this is almost a sketch plan as you see that the rectangles yeah the rectangles were served by parking areas that were off the main the highways the roadways so it's a highly different scheme highly good subdivision scheme we're not even certain those are single family homes although they are more likely to be but the scheme just changed and that city side that city side drive it changed the density and and like I mean I'm sure the developer just did it on their own initiative I think it was I'm trying to guess excuse me it it predates the permit okay we have to assume that the design was was accomplished by the applicant or in some who knows whose brainstorm it was but by the time the approval came forward it involved different shape differently configured lots it looks to me as though when the survey or drew it on and I have to tell you there was so much going on that was terrifyingly scary when we were doing this I think I was 39 when I started in Ken was 41 and we had three children we didn't know what the hell we were doing frankly and we were terrified so what that lot was designed as by our survey or at the time we probably didn't pay any attention made a nice straight line there and that's probably where it came from thank you just does anyone on the board question whether lot one exists as a subdivided lot no yeah so does anyone what's the view of the board members as to whether the language on the subdivision plot that says what one this is map C what one of very small letters numbers whatever that size is reserved for common land does anyone view that as a permit condition that was imposed by the Planning Commission I think in light of the minutes where they the motion for approval of that plat says I'm going to include this condition that says lot won't be dedicated as common land as a condition of approval I don't know that it really matters because I think I'm with Dan and this is what I was trying to get to a little bit was that you know this was a long time ago you've added land the regulations have changed you're now looking for an amendment under our new set of regulations I think if you get to the second step of Stokelop Highlands there's a lot of reasons to say flexibility is warranted here especially in light of the ambiguity as to what the intent behind this was but in looking at the language of the minutes it seems like you said it was never their intent to put any houses in this area as a result they put a condition saying we're going to dedicate this is common land and I think just looking at these minutes alone without your extremely detailed recollection and explanation of it a regulator could conclude that there is in fact a permit condition on lot one so I would say that I would also say that and applying to view that permit condition is requiring it to be remain common land in perpetuity to run with the land that's what permit conditions do yep unless they're amended subsequently and in common land is open and undeveloped land I think that that's a reasonable interpretation given the nature of this PUD that existed well would you then say you can put since you said you added land to so there's 14 more units carving up the whole other and adding 14 lots in the common land is there nothing in this approved plat that would prevent that that's conjectural right so but I'm we're talking about interpreting the sorry I yeah I guess I have a couple of things I'd like to point out when you read so the motion starts out that can I I'm sorry but we've been doing this for an hour and 15 minutes already so we don't do I the words are on the page from October 4th 1984 especially since this is only sketch plan we don't have to come to a decision tonight can I just add one point just a reminder that under the rules when this was created there was no minimum open space requirement the the planning commission had to consider that factor about how much open space was there but there was no minimum requirement so the the the common land designation doesn't necessarily mean it has to be open space is my reading of the way the bags work was there any land that was designated as open space as opposed to common land no so then I mean if you say the common land doesn't necessarily mean open space there is no open space therefore you can develop the common land I think undermines everything about how a PUD works but there was a density requirement as to how many units they were allowed and they were they were took their max units were presented and they have built that max number of units for the original acreage and then they added some acreage so you know they they still have a minimum there's still a minimum number of of units allowed yeah no I'm sorry you know they could they could it's I mean it leaves it leaves you with an open space leftover yeah and I think all that warrants saying that yeah this this condition condition three of the approval there's a lot of good reasons to amend it and to allow for it to to essentially get rid of the condition I wouldn't say that there isn't a condition in the first instance is just how I would read I do I do I do want want to come I I appreciate your seeing flexibility if we get into the stow kylons test but I I can't agree with you that common land is meant to be something that is kept in perpetuity we're operating under state law which does not use the term common land it talks about common land common elements as the chairman pointed out and land is one of those elements it also talks about the association that owns the common elements having the criteria that determine when it's allowed to change right the common the no I understand all that's governed by you know common ownership interest act that former condominium act it's but this is we're just talking about a zoning question whether this actually these approvals create a zoning condition and the the rights of a homeowners association to govern itself aren't really relevant to that but in I don't I'm not I'm okay I'm not looking for further discussion on this point okay I mean you're free to talk but I don't know I'm fine I'll just want to pipe in this member I see I see enough of a difference between the common land as it pertains to the Murray Hill Association as being separate and distinct from the lot one common land which clearly has a unique designation regardless of how it got there but given the time that has expired between 1983 and today in 2018 I just could not in good conscience try to treat that one lot in the same fashion as I would want to treat the open space common land in the meadow in that the other aspects of that may have may attach to that thank you Kevin the those as the board feel about whether the lot one notation constitutes an issue critical to the issuance of the permit well that's it's an element of how how we're charged to if the applicant does not propose to amend a permit condition that was included to resolve an issue critical to the issuance of the permit the DRB inquiry under the rule ends and it may consider the amendment application on its merits it's I was not if the original applicant was not sitting before us here's how I would think through that I would say would the applicant have accepted the decision of the planning commission in the absence of condition three I speculate that the person would have so I mean that was the expressed condition three was something that the applicant desired to have at that time it seems likely that the applicant would not have walked away from the project had condition three not been included so I see it as being something as we've heard as we've seen in the minutes that is of importance to the applicant but that was not a make-or-break well I think it's critical to the I was going to say it's I think it's from the perspective of the regulatory authority in other words would the Montpelier Planning Commission have was the fact that lot one was to be conveyed to the homeowners Association for let's use the language for use as common land rather than reserved or dedicated for uses was that a critical element of the subdivision permit that issued at that time I guess we don't know that because what we've heard is that it was included at the request of the applicant not because of the desire of the Planning Commission exactly and well I was just gonna point out though that the fact is is that it's it's there in the decision and I'm a little bit reluctant although we've heard a great deal of testimony to make central conditions of a of a permit not a determination that they are not critical to the issuance of the permit without further documentation within the permit itself the one language in the grant that I think does go towards that point is the fact that sorry just find the it says at the at I mean the the language it says that Mrs. a Ms. a bear move for the approval as requested by the developer but then it says which will include the following and those are each essential conditions yeah it doesn't say that the conditions were at the request of the developer it says the approved revised plot plan was at the request of the developer and then including the following I don't say ambiguous yeah I think it is because if you help well how many lots 46 48 48 so did the Planning Commission approve of 48 lots of division only if lot one wasn't going it was going to be held as common land that would be a 47 lot subdivision would it not be I think I think the Planning Commission approved the 48 lots of division and included that caveat as to lot one on the basis of the representation made by the applicant I don't think the intent of the Planning Commission was to approve a 47 lot wasn't critical to the issuance of the permit that there only be 47 saleable lots 47 developable plots we're in sketch plan we're in sketch plan because we have to go through the entire subdivision process to amend the plat so we're in sketch plan this is a time when we call the lawyers around the table up here we come back to common sense well I and we realize what we're attempting to do within the strikes of the new language here and the direction here's my I find nothing that says that 48 units weren't approved by the Planning Commission I don't disagree with you Jack I think it's just a matter I think at this point at least from my perspective it's a matter of what course the car takes to get to the destination and and it's going to have to decide what course they want to take well no but I mean as far as us as a development review board reviewing this I mean I think the outcome is at least as far as I can tell from the testimony it's been presented I think there's enough evidence to me to stoke club Highlands test because of the change in circumstances so you know that's the onerous test if we avoid that test and we say this is not an essential condition you know I can certainly see and I think the chairs is making that point as to whether or not it was an essential condition and that ties together with the testimony we've heard tonight and of which you know I think is certainly a valid route but if we did have to go all the way down Stoke club Highlands Drive there is the evidence to support that as well so and I think to a certain extent we have to we have to consider that and we should consider that because they're talking about a new lot don't forget we're talking about lot one that's been reserved but we're also talking about changing lot one as they've they've applied because it went from a triangular shaped piece of point two six five to now a larger more rectangular piece and I you know I have no problem with that for the same reasons of common sense that you're talking about Jack of trying to create a saleable lot that that that is reasonable and will likely yield money given this is maybe their one shot or at least it's their first shot and whenever the last lot was sold from the common development let's let's look at this right let's and let's do it right I think the common land given the fact that it's a quarter of an acre that they're taking out of that for a parcel it's a minimal I am anybody that's worried about the burglars that are probably in that field I think they're well protected no I I'm sure they are but the the other point is is that you know you create these I mean that's that's I think what what really lies at the heart of those still club Highlands and our role here today which is you know you create these these planned unit developments or subdivisions because and there's some thought that's put into the creation of them and there's always going to be pressure years down the road to squeeze one more lot in or to put one more thing in and and that's often not the intention of the original developers or the original regulatory board and to you know to to have this as a sort of creeping scale over time I think does discredit to the idea of so these regulatory stops because no means not now and I don't think that serves good planning purposes and I don't think that serves the the landowners correct we only have one other PUD in Montpelier and that's the college is that correct is there another PUD anywhere there was on upper means at 250 Main Street was a PUD I think that's right to AI PUD so that it's not it's not something that's we have the great opportunity to be messing with PUDs the rest of our lives who knows if we'll get more right with can you give us some direction well I unfortunately I think that Dan has summarized the issue in that the board has to decide and it wasn't something that I could make that decision as to whether or not you're gonna go down the path of saying Stoke-Lub Highlands test doesn't apply here in which case you just review the application under the city's subdivision and PUD approval process focusing just on this lot not the whole picture or if you also have to do the Stoke-Lub Highlands test it's you know and it's not something where I could find facts other than the change in facts with the additional land that we're really pulling in to meet the Stoke-Lub Highlands test you know if it came to reviewing this under just the subdivision PUD approval process I didn't really see any issues it's the way you get there that is the question and it's it's a setting precedent and how conservative of an approach you want to take I I'm sorry I don't have more direction I wish I did I wish I could say do it this way we have before us the minutes where the motion was made the motion was reported in the minutes is there a separate permit that would I mean the permit I assume would be the snow okay it's if you want I can pull I mean because this was what you're seeing it for those minutes that was an amendment to the plat that was originally recorded with the subdivision and you have to remember that the subdivision rules were like three pages at the time the first plat was 1983 and then the second one was 1984 with the creation of lot one I do have a copy of the actual permit form if you'd like that the application form not so much as the permit issue yeah the minutes the written decision I can get you everything we have in the file on all the different permit versions and all the different approvals I was trying to focus on the ones that seemed applicable to this situation I trust you've done a good staff review of that and I don't want to send you on a wild goose chase I was just wondering if there could be more to be learned then I would love to know it but if there isn't then we'll stop right there with my question I mean I suspect this is back in slightly less formal days they didn't know what they were doing yeah at that time this was the permit it's also the permit so you weren't kidding yeah I mean that's actually what a lot of town still use thank you sorry about that and that's one reason that they had the whole process with Bianchi and going okay let's actually find out what the plat they mean the plat is basically the recorded permit in essence because they they didn't have things that were recorded and they'd skip things so they had to go back and make sure that the final plat was recorded to show what was approved and ended up being as built was what was approved great that that satisfies my curiosity thank you can I belabor this issue just just for a second I won't drag it out I have a question to ask the mayor okay am I correct in understanding that in the zone where the district that we're in now that if you did a PUD today the common land requirement would be 400 square feet per unit oh well she's looking that up so I don't waste your time I can I can I can do I can do I could come back to the board with a current analysis under the current rules if you want it would need to be an analysis of if this were PUD were created today because we don't have a section in here for amending that's one of the things that needs to get fixed in these rules I I would not favor that only because I think that invites a whole cartload of speculation agreed yeah that's one reason we didn't do it to begin with yeah no you don't want me to tell you that I figured out that there would be 1570 allowable units at Murray Hill if you base it on the number of the square footage in common land that we have I don't I don't think I agree with the chair I'm not sure that's why I was asking Meredith for some some direction if we I could go either way on the Stoke Club Highlands analysis in to my mind I could conclude that that the annotation about lot one was not a permit condition so much as it was an accommodation of a representation made by the applicant at the time and that whether it was a 47 or a 48 lot subdivision was not a critical element of that permit on the other hand you know we have the advice of the city's council that recommends a conservative approach and that we go through the Stoke Club Highlands analysis well there's no doubt in my mind where my where the all this analysis will lead me and so I guess I'm asking how other board members feel do you do we want to go through the Stoke Club Highlands on on this is this kind of it's this question of such a moment that we do that if we feel that way then we should and we'll go through it and then take the subdivision the merits of the new subdivision under consideration in accordance with the new ordinance or can we conclude that it wasn't critical and that an amendment is appropriate let me ask let me ask a process question I mean if we we don't have to decide that tonight we kick it down the road well no I mean it's a sketch plan I know I understand but but let me just interrupt because I'd already been that's why I asked Meredith earlier if it is sketch plan sketch plan would be of little utility if we didn't determine what we would do the next time we got right well that well I wanted to make sure you weren't going down because I think either way we have to come we had they have to come back they have to come back and knowing if they have to deal with Stoke Club Highlands when they come back and a good thing right and the question is whether or not either way whether or not they have to deal with it and one other point just to point out to remind people that yes the city's attorneys did suggest going the Stoke Club Highlands route as the conservative approach they acknowledged and I talked to two different attorneys about this that none of the Vermont case law has dealt with a Stoke Club Highlands test where the city ordinance in question or city regulations in question have a process for amending a PUD plat whereas Montpeliers do so you have a couple of different elements elements that point towards not necessarily having to go through that entire analysis both the fact that potentially this might not have been an issue critical to the issuance of the permit and that Montpelier does also have those regulations it's it's just in some ways that you know I mean I think of the two big tests about zoning changes which are the Stoke up Highlands analysis and then the successive application doctrine being high and low and what this suggests is that there's a middle ground where you know there is some scrutiny there is some search for change circumstances and so some of the and in a case like this where there is no clear identified purpose for this condition it's not as if it was dedicated for open land it was dedicated for common land but it's clear that common land may have been open land in some in some cases and and met common land to be developed later in other situations so given that ambiguity I tend to think that there would be benefit to having a Stoke up Highlands like analysis given the fact that they are free to apply I mean that's the that's the one thing about Stoke up Highlands is you're not free to reapply me if free to amend your active 50 permit it's permanent as Ryan was saying earlier but here we have a process that does suggest that so it suggests a lighter application of that and given the information that we've received tonight I see no I don't see any any roadblocks towards the applicant fulfilling that that hurdle but I think we we give it a certain amount of precision in compliance not only with legal advice we were given but I think also to give clarity to this subdivision in the future yep but they don't have the VA team to come forward and talk about what happened before I think the question is whether they need to come forward with evidence at this final subdivision regarding the the factors the flexibility versus finality factors I guess I'll just say my own thinking I think I would say that it is a condition of the approval but I do I think that after our discussion that I'm inclined to say that it was not a critical condition given the representations by the applicants the original applicants as to what was intended at that hearing and some corroboration of that within the minutes that this was something suggested by the developers and therefore was not likely something that was critical to the planning commission's approval however I think in most instances the inclusion of a condition by the regulators generally is something that is critical to the traditions of apartment I don't think regulatory bodies generally impose conditions that they don't mean anything or that aren't they don't serve any function which is essentially what I see this as but I think I I've been persuaded that that is the case here that this common land was not intended as any sort of restriction on the the use of lot one so I would say that we do not need to balance the factors of finality versus flexibility at the final subdivision hearing well now that that's clear what's the that is the board want to do we want to proceed through the Stoke Club Highlands analysis certainly not tonight no it we need to set the table for our next meeting we need to give the applicant clear direction about what how to prepare for the hearing is there does the board want to make a decision about the Stoke Club Highlands Stoke Club Highlands analysis we want to do it on a voice on a vote yeah let's vote so as to whether or not it will be applied in the at the final review yes I'll make a motion emotions always have to be any affirmative yes I move that this application be put through the Stoke Club Highlands test a second so the motion by Roger second by Kevin is their discussion I'm going to vote against the motion because I believe that this is unique and of such a minor consequence for the development and with passage of time I just see no purpose at all being served by going through that analysis let me ask a question if the motion doesn't carry and will we won't apply the Stoke Club Highlands analysis are we real are we clear about what we're gonna do the next time we are here let me believe so maybe articulate that into words as I understand it is that if the Stoke Club Highlands analysis is not applied next time and given sketch plan I mean this is really our take in slightly more formal version but it would essentially be our our understanding at this point in time that this was not an essential condition of the permit and then therefore it would be reviewed under a normal amendment to the to to the original 84 PUD permit that was that's what I was that's what I expected but I wanted to make sure that we knew what we faced Kate clarity is appreciated thank you Dan that means that it will still be evaluated with respect to criteria about the suitability of the amendment okay so we're all right that's the clarity that I wish to provide there are still criteria that are met it's not just once we don't do Stoke Club or do do Stoke Club it's done okay thank you let's just revisit the motion was the Rogers motion was to apply the Stoke Club Highlands analysis to this application that's correct correct okay any further discussion all those in favor of the motion please seek to buy by raising their right hands all those opposed thank you so what we will do is with the prism through which the lens through which we're going to review this at the at the final review is under the zoning ordinance under our subdivision regulations at any existence right now thank you I'm sorry no that's you're free to speak if you do I've been waiting for the opportunity I understand this was technically a procedural matter as so far as the board's perspective you're free to speak please step forward state your name I live a lot too so it's gonna matter of some discussion for a number of years but I think what should be aware of that lot is it has a drainage ditch on it that's the little triangle of time I'm not the expanded more importantly it has it's very close to my four and the reason that matters is it's so close that the property line bound to this in the middle of my drive so 1985 or so a deed at easement was granted so that it could be a driveway on that house when it was built so it's a 25 foot easement across the front of lot one which is my driver so obviously I have some concerns about that putting a house on that lot that close to my house as a really detrimental impact on value of my property estimation personally I don't know that what one is required the money is required that's I'm not that's their business but it seems to me that if the borders are all fun to go right now that's what seems like we can expand into the land we do whatever we want it seemed to me to make sense to swing that border out of my driveway and leave that little strip of common land with drainage swell is and my easement is and put that block in a clear free frontage it's a matter of swing it to down 25 or 30 feet down the road and making a square that would be be more saleable than having creating a new lot with a easement across it right off the bat for see issues with her who lives in that house dealing with that driveway when there's a house right next to him and there's an easement whose land this is and where the border is so I would consider the topography of that little triangle of land that quarter of an acre and say well if we're going to change all the borders because if you're going to grant making it for a big rectangle that apparently if you're free to take that common land why not just slide the whole thing over leave the drainage swell where it is leave the utility pole where it is Mr. Roy I don't mean to interrupt but you've been here since the beginning and you've you haven't heard us discuss any of the merits of this the subdivision application that where the acreage is coming from you can you can tell us in great detail where the location of your driveway is and the easement swell and and and or the drainage swell and the like it could be in Ennisburg Falls for all I know because we haven't looked at the at this site and the configuration of lot one vis-a-vis lot two we have we didn't really enter the merits of the subdivision application so be sure that it seemed like we were just sort of going down the road where check check check done so I just want to make sure this is we're actually going to look at it and and consider that point means to me it's no one else in Marielle is affected I understand the number one the only vote that was against it was me well it's you are no I understand and I hope you understand that we're going to get to the merits of the subdivision itself at the next hearing okay so Mr. Chair he's saying that those are the types of factors we'll consider when we do our next level of review at the next meeting well it's the merits of a of a specific subdivision and a reconfiguration of the lot lines and we would always take into consideration elements impact on the adjoining properties whether there's the transportation patterns or make sense though where the driveway will enter the the street I just wanted to make sure that was clear to our sight distances in the life yes yes well it's it's going to be winding down so please step forward and I'm Charlie home I live at 282 Main Street so I am at a budding landowner probably after him the most affected by this and having not gone through this process before I had a bunch of comments about this proposal and why I don't think it was a good idea that it sounds like I'm appropriate this meeting so I'll keep this short and hope I can come to the next one what I'll bring up now is that I work in conservation totally unrelated to this and I'm not presenting my comments as in from that lens but you know I'm frustrated with this because lot one isn't on any of the state layers it wasn't I looked at when we bought the house it kind of came out of nowhere for us I even went down into the vault and looked at the applications it's not on there I see it's on some apps it's not on others you know and I understand that you know it existed to them and that's valid but you know and certainly everyone that the idea that surrounds everything in the neighborhood was that that was conserved I know we can argue whether it should be or isn't maybe that's for the next meeting but in short if a PUD is something that can be changed because someone wants or needs money then I have a lot of concerns with that this project in the future precedence I can't even see ever supporting you know I'm just a citizen but you know I can't see citizens supporting a PUD when it's just changed when someone you know I don't get to do that I don't get some of their land I don't know I'm frustrated I don't want to be a bad neighbor but I just think you know and if the proposal does come up that it can be moved somewhere else then you know certainly it doesn't someone's driveways a problem but also cutting that field in half we'll have I know it's not Yellowstone it's a field I know that but like cutting a field in half we'll have ecological impacts and we've got 350 species we've documented on our land I'd expect we'd lose some if they did that I know that maybe again roaming outside the this meeting but I'll leave it at that but just consider the precedent could be pretty because I know there's other big parcels of land we'll talk about developing it if when one of those is trying to get developing well Murray Hill got to change it 20 years later I think that well it's precedent you're right that it wouldn't want us to consider you wouldn't want us to fail to consider the details of this subdivision if the fact that the amendment of the subdivision was going to be used as precedent in the future and I just love my final point is I hope whatever the outcome of this is that some clarity is I think it's only fair for the other abiding land owners and other people on majoring that there's some clarity as to what's going on with that land you know because I got a plan a bunch of trees if they're going to develop that whole thing like what it sounds like no is they can if they decide to later just creep through and develop the whole thing and I think that's something that a budding landowner deserves to know now sooner rather than later so that's not what we expected can can you identify where 282 main is and I am yeah so I'm there's a lot one where it isn't and we're right here here and all of our house faces this way and I know this is maybe not a concern for the broader city but in terms of character of our house it's devastating quite you know not not survival but like yeah it'll it'll be a big change we wanted to live in on the edge of Montpelier not in Colchester could you put your finger on 282 again right here oh right okay the Murray's the Murray's yes yes they deserve the right to go through the process and whatever you know I understand it's not just our choice that I just want to be heard okay we just want to identify where 282 was great you know like I said I really hope we can get some clarity so we understand and how we manage our field whether or not we'll be able to have that common land continue to exist or if it's going to turn into a Walmart or something I always thought it was conserved land I guess it's not that's disappointing but don't throw that w-word around here it's just like the m-word as I said to mr. Varney we're new we'll get into the weeds and the nuts and bolts on the substance of this subdivision at the next hearing bring your toddler that'll shorten the hearing would be two hours long that if we had a two-year-old running yeah you can always submit written comments and yes yes I'm sorry okay yes did you sign in on the sign-in sheet that's right there inside the door and your mr. Varney you're in a butter yes so you get the notices just the same way you did you got a notice this time correct yeah so this is as we said sketch plan review is the characterization of this kind of proceeding which is really it's not deliberative and we don't make a decision other than we made a procedural decision here tonight just to inform the applicant how the next hearing will proceed so we don't really have to close this hearing we can just end it without a formal proceeding which I think we will do that the hearing of hearing on this application our meeting is still our meeting is going to continue yes yes I'm sorry okay hello my name is Will Shebaum resident of 217 North Street not an immediate a butter DRB but I'm here on behalf of a number of residents on North Street and lower North Franklin I wrote basically a letter and a bunch of signatures and just something to consider for you do come to preliminary or the final subdivision so dear residents of Murray Hill and the Murray Hill condo associate association we are neighbors and residents of lower North Street and North Franklin Street neighborhoods are very concerned about the small brook that originates at your detention ponds which collect all of your storm water was once an incident insignificant stream draining a small watershed prior development but now during heavy rains that happened at least once a year which is unfortunately given from here on out with the way the climate is changing becomes a torrential river that is rapidly and dangerously eroding hillside below the graveyard down to North Street through in North Franklin and eventually the Winooski we are quite concerned about the land on either side of the stream as we watch it along with many old trees fall into the growing gulch the hillside is simply washing away this is a worry for homeowners whose homes sit next to the stream because of likely home damage flooding driveways washing away even home loss on top of that many more people are affected by this problem because so many large rocks and silt get washed down the river and clogging the culvert on North Street water silt and rocks flown to Main Street down the length of North Street to mechanic Street and beyond to Main Street and the people's lawns and basements resulting in significant damage there's also the larger impact on the environment of Lake Champlain the after effect of this is a few days of work for the city of Montpelier road crew which at best is a temporary solution pointless use of our tax dollars and a lot of cleanup to be done by the residents of lower North Street the detention ponds and site work at Murray Hill need to be upgraded so that you are not causing this damage and possibly home loss to your neighbors downstream Matt destino from the state stormwater division came to take a look and told us that he has asked you to do some maintenance to upgrade things to prevent further damage we ask that at a minimum you comply with his request but also ask you to update the detention ponds to today's reality whether or not it is a lot to do so it is damaging to the people downstream and the environment around you if you do not do so we ask you do this as soon as possible before the damage gets significantly worse so a variety of signatures on this and then also personal experience having gone up there after some very heavy range that clogged the culvert in question so it's not sure when it was built you know with a 83 but obviously quite a concern as I'm sure some of you know it's significant I guess I would ask that at the next you know maybe some proof at the next meeting for your final review as proof that you're in compliance with maintenance is needed as I said we've spoken with Matt destino and I noticed on your permit application that you've been in touch with him as well right so he issued an exemption for lot one because it does not drain towards North Street it drains towards yeah I understand that but I think the stormwater plan for lot one is fine sounds totally reasonable but in regards to you know if you know the funds from the sale of lot one I would recommend that you know prior to resurfacing the tennis courts maybe you would you know upgrade your maintenance bonds excuse me folks we don't have a hearing to allow a dialogue between two witnesses well I have to tell you that you can get your nose under the tent flap some places but not here and so if you're if your issues are germane to something that's not involved with the subdivision this is this is not well you can send them the letter and pick up the phone that's but we don't have any jurisdiction over that compliance in connection with the subdivision I well we probably could expand it but you're gonna have to have empirical evidence to introduce to us that that the project is not in compliance with its stormwater permit so leverage is best exercise face-to-face thanks thank you folks we're gonna move on to other matters on our agenda so the other matter on our agenda is 27th School Street no one ever no Chris is here Chris is here I don't know nothing at some point I missed the beginning that when this got here late because if I'd known about that it would have been sorry if I'd known about that the last one I would have been earlier so I could have been on first I was on first in the agenda touch late I started without you I understand no problem no before we begin this matter at 9 o'clock Meredith is some our next regularly scheduled meeting is August 6th correct and then August 20th yes is the how significant is the agenda for August 6th one item right now when will we hear they have to file a the final application they haven't even submitted that yet okay so they have to file an entirely new application okay so they're back to the drawing board and for yes for public notice and so the application we have on August 6th is that is one home farmway it will be an amendment to a previously issued site plan under the old rules okay so mr. Pierce yes initiating conditional use minor site plan and design review at 9 o'clock is late it's a big undertaking would you respond would you feel like you were less than satisfactorily treated if we asked if you might continue this to August 6th I I don't have a yeah that'd be fine I think my large my biggest concern is for my client who would love to get bodies into his apartment but I think if we're complying with what we assume you think is okay and we'll just continue our work and move along so if you're okay with that I'm okay with moving I'm not sure what I'm okay with well we're doing we're doing some renovations and yes there may be things that are in question about what we're doing or that you may say yay or nay to I would like to complete as much of that as possible in the meantime if that's okay well I can make a modest suggestion is we could swear the witness in have him give a description of the project generally consistent so that if we have any concerns or questions we could ask them now and then continue the sort of in the weeds in-depth review to the August 6th hearing that would give the applicant while not a legal ground to go forward necessarily at least enough of a weather report from us so that if he had to make minor undoable changes that could be undone he could do so in the 20 some odd days between now and August 6th I'm agreeable to that please raise your right hand you saw me swear the evidence you're about to give on the matter under consideration is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do thank you your Chris Pierce you're here on behalf of key Turner properties LLC yes I am great why don't you tell us what the plan involves the project involves well I don't know if you have a picture of the building there but we my client purchased the building thinking it only needed a few items and it turns out it needed a complete renovation from literally anything that we opened up was rotted needed to be replaced so we went ahead and gutted the building and in doing so we realized that there was this beautiful attic that we'd like to add at the sixth residence it's currently five five unit apartment and has been I think since the 70s maybe it does have enough parking currently to manage that many people we have gotten a sprinkler waiver so we don't have to do the sprinkler if we put two means of egress in one being interior so that doesn't affect really any of the exterior that may be in question but there is a secondary deck second the secondary egress would be a deck that's in the application and a spiral staircase that those are the two big ones that we'd love to continue with windows have been replaced being matched the same windows however they're not wood they don't match the originally antique windows but that's a financial hardship to try and do that the amount that needed to be replaced but that's really that's the big I think that's the big item is the the the addition of a third floor deck and spiral staircase I think the rest of it you know landscaping and whatnot is tertiary doesn't matter too much and just remind me if you've added the laundry room have not added a laundry room that's another one I keep forgetting about that because that's an addition to the building envelope of a not the building footprint it's actually it's it's not really part of the envelope but it it's its own envelope but it looks like it's part of because it's separately built on a separate foundation but it will integrate to the building to look like it is part of the building itself you have a that we can put a we can put that off that doesn't really matter too much because of the exterior work my biggest the what I really like to get as a CEO I don't need that for a CEO I don't need for certificate of occupancy I don't need a laundry room I do need to have egresses completed handrails and minor things like that that are exterior that you might care about I can tell you that if I'm not mistaken if we hear this on August 6th an issue of an opinion on August 10th the decision the permit's not final for 30 days and I don't believe you'll get a certificate of occupancy until the 30 days has expired September 6th we could at least show the building I feel like you're selling me a car so there's not much we can give you in the way of a assurance or moral and support to this I guess if there's anything that's just you know red flag don't do this I'd love to know as a matter of fact did you read the staff report like oh if you read the staff report the staff comments are in red oh so there's no there's no flags waving but it does point out I can give me missions or missions or further information that should be introduced and in our proceedings we the staff report would generally guide us toward issues that need further information clarification and if we were to proceed tonight to the extent that the staff report identifies mature information that's not presently in the record then you would find yourself continued to August 6th in any event okay you can use this as a template or as a as a menu of and direction for completing this the materials before that have been submitted so Chris this is because there was some after I sent the staff report to the applicants there was some email correspondence on which I was copied but I am not allowed to present at this point that it was to get came too late that pointed out where there was discussion of where the issues were and I believe Chris that that correspondence has a lot of the issues that were highlighted in red here a bit with the owner I okay the correspondence included you yes all of this okay do you need this a copy but I guess the point is that continuing you to August 6th is probably beneficial at this point because it allows you to clean up blue loose hens mm-hmm so but I we can't give you any assurances about the deck or the circular stairway and at this point okay best we can do that but yeah we wouldn't want you rely upon a representation that we're don't come back in August we'll give you the permit then feeling it's not the way we pride on ourselves on being thoroughly have done this kind of backwards this whole project just kept snowballing and the permit went from heat and a minor bathroom move to knocking down walls re-engineering the interior of the building so it's gone I think I saw the sills last spring yeah I mean it's walk one Sunday and you got to feel bad for the guy yes it's terrible well I feel really good about myself because we looked at that building in 1985 when Stan Grandfield was thinking about selling it oh boy feeling really good that I better back that we moved down the street all right is there a motion to continue the key turner properties LLC application to August 6th I'll make a motion to continue it to August 6th oh second motion by Dan second by Jack all those in favor of the motion please signify by raising their right hands great thank you Chris we'll see you then okay thank you right thank you I'll make a motion to adjourn second there a motion and a second all those in favor of the motion please signify by raising your right hands we are adjourned