 So, this is the November 6th development review board meeting, the city of Montpelier. We'll call this meeting to order now and we're going to give Marinette a few minutes to explain remote meeting procedures and then we'll go back to our topics. So, Justin, this will be for you to pay attention to because it talks about how to interact in the meeting, but the share screen part is really for anybody who is watching from home on Orca media. But then there's just part of my spiel to listen to. Alrighty, so for anyone watching tonight's development review board meeting via Orca media, you can participate in tonight's discussion via the zoom platform through either video or telephone access options. So you can type this link into your web browser, and it should bring you right into the waiting room, and I'll get a little notification of that and let you into the meeting. Alternatively, you can dial this phone number and plug in this meeting ID. And then I'll get that same notification. If you're trying to get into the meeting and having problems, please email me at mcrandle at Montpelier hyphen vt.org. And I'll be monitoring monitoring my email throughout the meeting to keep an eye on that. For those attending via zoom turning your video on is optional. We don't really have any members of the public on tonight, but if anybody watching via Orca does come on, please make sure to keep your microphone on mute and you may actually not even have an unmute button. It may be that I have to ask you to unmute before you can do so. So if you wish to speak when you come on, please raise your hand. And then I will make sure that you can talk once the chair has called on you. Please be patient raise your hand you can either do it physically if you're on video, or you can use the use the raise hand button. Or if you're calling in on the phone, you can do star nine. And this will give us a little raise hand and we'll get you in the queue and then call on you when appropriate. In the event the public is unable to access tonight's meeting and I would get notice of that via my email. The meeting will need to be continued to a time and place certain on now hand the meeting back over to the chair. Thank you. So I think without further ado, maybe let's start with our first and only application this evening, which is by Justin Dreschler. 22 Liberty Street. I think if we can just get a brief summary from Meredith, just a sort of technical what is this I'm sure everybody's ready. Oh, I'm sorry. I've jumped in too far. We need to approve the agenda. Can I have a motion to approve the agenda? I move we approve the agenda. And a second. I second. Sorry. So, Meredith, if you want to do just a very short. Can we vote? Kind of. All those in favor of approving the agenda. I. Anyone opposed. Sorry. No, it's okay. It's totally fine. Very funny. So now, Meredith, do you want to. This is very brief because it's it's pretty straightforward. Applicant wants to build a carport. And to fit the size carport that they want to be able to cover two cars in the space that they have they're asking for three variances. So a side setback and a rear setback variance as well as a variance for the coverage max. None of the. Setback locations that they ask for, or the addition of coverage qualify for waivers. They're just. They just don't quite fit in the boxes. And so the key thing here is for the board to determine whether the request being made fit the variance criteria and I've tried to chart that out for everybody. I couldn't, I couldn't find a way to make it fit. But the board is the one who makes the decisions. So if you can find a way to make it fit. Explain it in a way I can write for you and that's what that's what we're I think we're looking for. Okay. That sounds great. Justin, do you want to just kind of give it like a very quick overview of what you what you are requesting here? I mean, why? Sure. The 22 Liberty is the property that I own that is rented to a family of Afghan refugees in town. It's actually two families that live together. It's two brothers and their other children and their wives. So about a dozen of them that live there. They both leave for work very early in the morning. I remember that Muhammad leaves earlier than four o'clock in the morning, and he had asked me at some point, can I put a car for it in? I mean, in those terms he said, can I make one of these and point it to a picture? And I said can I put this in so that I don't have to clean off my car after snow storms at whatever time or even night after snow storms honestly just being like a little bit icy or a little dusty for a few inches at four in the morning. And he said, yeah, sure. And that was before I realized that you had to get permits for such things. So, so any who they actually they started framing it out, which I didn't even know they were capable of I thought that there was going to be a. I thought that we, we were going to have this like long discussion about what it was going to look like and stuff like that but they, they are fast workers. And I saw they started to frame it I froze them and I started this process. Once I talked to a couple people and realized I needed a permit. In terms of the variants, the, I mean, it really is just a, like a practical consideration the driveway is narrow, and then it gets a little wide you know it's one of those standard driveways that gets, you can't pull two cars into the exact same time you have to, you can pull them in, and then you, and then you pull out so it would be tandem if not for that extra spot over here. And the setback request is such that we can still build it in the space where it's wide enough for two cars without running into the house. So the side, the side setback request is actually just because, well actually they're both for the same reason, the side setback request is basically just exactly to the driveway line. So the driveway line is three feet four inches from the from the fence so it's like fence three feet four inches to the driveway and then this is all grass, and then, and then over here to the to the house. It's basically like going to be right against the house and so if we offset this another one foot six and one foot eight inches it's going to be close. As far as the back setback, when we pull it closer to the start of the driveway so in so far as we move it further from the backyard, we run the risk of running into the, either running into the, the shallow part of the driveways using the narrow part of the driveway or running into the house because it's, you know, it's kind of a window there. It's definitely possible that I could squeeze another foot, foot and a half out of this thing. And I'm happy to build it as close as I possibly can to the guidelines but I don't think 10 and five are going to work. Okay, and then as far as the, as far as coverage goes. But the compacted dirt isn't really going to isn't going to save us with the porous material type stuff, but a very small part of the cars would be parked on dirt. If any, actually, the carport would extend onto the dirt that they did the frame is largely that they may not go all the way in. So that's the sets the whole deal. The other thing is there's a pergola that clearly doesn't meet zoning at the house next door that I could reach by just reaching over the fence that has no practical use. So as far as consistency, I don't know if they just didn't permanent or what. But, but I mean as far as consistency goes. As far as I feel like we should have ours. Well, I think that we're not really in a position to evaluate how that happens, you know, whether it was permitted. Okay. So I think. I mean, to me, it seems like the meat of this question really is that for criteria that. I just, I'm here to set out. And I don't know if people have other questions about the application we want to go over those first or should we just jump right into that. If we can go look at those criteria and think that will spark some good discussion. Okay, that's that's what I was thinking. We should just go to that. One question. I see the map. I've actually pulled up Google maps myself. I see the image. I just think it would be helpful if someone could indicate in plan where this is designated to be in that street view. That's very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. And I maybe. Oh, I'm sorry, Meredith. I hadn't gotten there yet. Okay. Thank you. And the, the home footprint that we're seeing for the existing house. This is includes or does not include the bay window. It doesn't. It's not perfect. That's my fault. This I in fairness to me, this is a great job by me. This is my absolute best work. But I'm not an architect. This is my first time doing this. So it does not include doesn't include the bay window. But if you look to the corner of the carport. The bay window is going to be a couple feet in the southernly direction actually would be south here or be west, but you get it that down direction. Okay. Okay, thanks. Okay. I'm just trying to see if there's anything else in here we want to talk about before we get to the criteria. I really do think that's the biggest biggest tickling point. I guess. Let's start at the top then board to determine what physical unique physical circumstance or condition of the property are being an unnecessary hardship. And I think that one of the issues that we need to talk about is what is an unnecessary hardship and how we define that I think that's pretty relevant in this application. That's from board members about that. Yeah, I guess. One question that comes to mind is the width of it. Is this designed for two cars side by side, or Yes. I have a, I mean, a third to half the houses on Liberty street don't have any cover for their cars. So I have a sort of question about how we're defining unnecessary hardship. I mean, I've lived here for 50 years I have never garage my cars but I'm not a good. I've had outbuildings but not for my cars. So, I mean, what are we calling an unnecessary hardship. I think the applicant in this in this case made the point that it was getting up really early and having to clear snow off the cars was the hardship is that correct just am I getting that right. It is it's that it's the hours that, you know, therefore, I would show Mohammed in particular is forced to not force but it means more or less forced to work those hours, because he can't work on Friday, because of his religion. And so he works these 11 hour shifts that aren't tough. So he has to start extremely early in the morning. And so, yeah, I mean that's what that's what I that's what I would pitch the hardship as generally, I mean I consider it a pretty significant hardship for the family. And so there's also just a hardship, generally, with regard to having to feed and house 12 people, and I don't know just like navigate through the world in a way that is difficult. And so it's, you know, the easier that we can make on these guys, the better. I think everybody's heart is in that same place with you. Certainly reaching. I know. But, but our mission here is always to basically follow the zoning regulations in a way that does make them consistent. And so that's our struggle here, not that there's any question about they're deserving of a carport. You know, that's, that's fine. Ryan. Oh yeah, I just, I guess this is more of a question. But I guess I'll just propose it as a statement I think maybe the definition of hardship is also something that would fall upon the homeowner and not those who are being rented to. Not that that's necessarily important distinction to make but it seems it seems that's probably what where the definition lies Meredith wants to respond to that. Yeah, Meredith. So just a note. So when you're in Vermont, when you're in a, I should have pulled more of this probably to put in the staff report to be sort of a primer on variances. But one of the ways to think about what they're talking about about the unnecessary hardship is it's an unnecessary hardship created by the local law. So the, the, the setback requirements or the coverage max requirements are creating an unnecessary hardship and that's combined with the unique features of the parcel. It's not necessarily about the separate hardships that the applicants are dealing with for why they're asking for it. It's the for the thing to be put there. It's the why they can't comply with the requirements constraints on the site. Right that make it so that they can't comply with the zoning requirement and the failure inability to comply with the zoning requirement is sort of the hardship. Okay. I think someone asked a good question earlier. I'm sorry, see Alex as our hand up. I just squeezed this in there to reiterate what was asked, but the question was asked, maybe by Rob is this a two car garage or one car. Right. Alex, I was going to make a similar point that had this application come to us clean without a structure already having been started. And we were considering this, we might have gone down the pathway of a one car garage or something 12 feet wide, instead of 19 feet wide. Right, which would, in which case there wouldn't be a hardship. We started to be constructed. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Who's talking. Brian. I question. Alex just said something has already been built. Yes. Before I realized there was there was a two part problem here. Number one, I didn't realize that we were going to need a permit generally and that there might be a variance. And two, I had no idea that these guys were going to build this themselves before we had a lengthy discussion. They asked me the question whether they could get, could have one of these things. And I said, sure, as your landlord, I don't care at all. And then within like 48 hours, they hit frame something out. So, what are the footings? Yeah, good question. That is. I'm sorry. The issue before us is really the variances. And we, you know, we can, we can talk about the footings, but I don't think they're super relevant to what we're trying to decide here. Right. I agree with you. I just wanted to make the point to understand because I was catching up with narrative here about how substantial what was there is. And the simple answer is if it, the footings are not substantial, then it seems like it's easy to suggest that this thing may shrink a little bit to start to conform. If not completely conform a little better. Yeah, there are no. Brian, if you're asking, there are no poured concrete footings in place or anything like that if that's where you're asking like unmovable concrete footings. No. Okay, thanks. Meredith. So just a reminder, the board's job is to approve or not approve the request. If it comes down to redesigning it to fit the requirements. Justin can come to me with a permit like if they decide to, instead of having it be side by side parking, have it be one in front of the other tandem parking in a longer carport. I mean, I know it's a, it's a pain to take down what's there and build something new, but they could do that with an administrative permit, but they're trying to get this side by side right now. So that's the question whether or not the board is willing to authorize that requested thing that's already started to be built. I understood. And I think all I was trying to clarify moving forward for everybody else is in approving or not approving. Can we make a similar recommendation that you just made, which is to say, this will work, but this will work. No. I mean, I know that's what we can't do. We can't, we can't kind of, I mean, we can talk about like, would it be acceptable, given the current regulations, if they were to build a different size thing, we could talk about that. But they have to come back with the application we can't, we can't sort of step in and say you need to move this this way and this was this, you know, I mean, it's, it's. Yeah, we can tell that now it doesn't. I think it's important that we don't cross pairs here I mean I think for the benefit of everybody I think it's the right call to deal with this or at least try to deal with this with this as a permitting action and not an enforcement action or something that happened. And we've, we're in the process of dealing with this as a, as a permitting action, which is the cleanest best suit route so we need to not not make that you know what happened with the enforcement, you know, side of things since we've chosen this path. Hopefully we don't, we don't go the go the other way. Okay, I only have one last question and I think I'm done with questions. First of all, I totally agree with what Rob just said, and I don't want there to be confusion about what my perspective is here. But second of all, I guess. What Meredith is saying to clarify Meredith is that there's no saying the carport works in X and Y. It doesn't work as proposed. It's really just yay or nay, and then a new application comes forward. Is that correct. Unless you're saying we approve it with like a one foot change on one side, right. So, like, you could, you could say this variance is too much. We're just going to shift it a little bit and make it a little bit smaller. That's kind of, it's still a little gray, but that could be done. You can't say, okay, change the design, make it tandem. Like, that's not something you can do, or you could say, hey, we approve this size, this variance to the rear, we don't, or we approve the coverage variance. That means the setback doesn't. Right. And then they could come to me probably with a, you know, meeting something, but it's generally it's yay or nay to what they have. Generally there's not tweaks because this isn't something where it's conditioned, unlike putting up screening. Right. There's some things where somebody's making a request and you say, okay, but you got to add screening here. Right. That's a little different versus redesigning. I got you. Alex has a question I see and then I guess I just have one more final clarifying then I won't have any more promises. Alex. I make no promises, but I do have a question and since we're fielding sort of general questions, and that is what are the plans for snow removal? Because when I Googled this site, the snow removal was a winter image and the snow removal was all toward the back of the property where the carport is proposed. So do we, is that germane or not? Is that a question for me or no? I don't know. I mean, there's plenty of room to toss the snow in the backyard outside of where the carport would be. And there is, I mean, if they choose, there's room to toss it on the side of the house and on the, I mean, on both sides of the driveway, you've got maybe, I don't know, I'm on site. It's one of the six feet and three feet on the other side. And there's quite a bit of room in the back. So hand shoveling it would work. It just wouldn't work with a plow, which is clearly how it had been done in the image. Oh yeah, these guys aren't going to plow anything or have someone plow. They're all, they're hand shoveled guys. Well, they'll, I mean, I'll get them a snow blower, but yeah. Okay. So where does that kind of put us? I mean, I think that, I mean, looking at the definition of unnecessary hardship, it does seem like there is room to say there that the size of the lot has created. You know, and has created the reason for this, the request or this waiver, I guess. I guess, have you, have you thought about making it comply? Justin. Yeah. Yeah, sure. I think about it every single day. It just didn't work. I mean, you couldn't do a tandem thing. I mean, I'm just, I'm curious like, No, it's a no there. I mean, if you deny it, I'll find a way. It's not like you aren't ruining my life or ruining somebody else's life. If you deny it and deny it, it's, it is what it is. I'll figure it out. I'll do it in compliance to the law. I do have respect for the law. Oh, yes. Okay. Yeah, I think unfortunately, I'm not. I'm not, I'm not seeing the variance criteria here, Matt. I mean, we don't have to go through all of them because I think, you know, one of them doesn't work then. Essentially, you know, whether the others work or not. I, yeah, I just, the information as presented, I'm not seeing the hardship argument. I think, you know, maybe some things that talking about talking about things that would maybe change my mind, but it would require different information or, you know, thinking about how at least having, you know, a parking space in the name of, you know, make a sec accessibility. I remember we, it was a different, different situation. But we, we had a covered trash area that, you know, I think was was with a unique situation where it was, you know, very close to the public right away, not something that really fit squarely in the regulations and we were able to sort of, I think make it work in the sense that, you know, elderly people going out to put out their trash, and having a covered area so they're not slipping on the ice. I think was a was a reasonable logic in, you know, approving a very, I don't know if it was a variance but you know, deviating from, you know, the regs as printed to do that sort of thing. And so I guess what I'm seeing here is, is a, is a concept that could work. But, you know, I think that maybe if I were in the applicant shoes and hearing the discussion right now I might consider, you know, asking for a chance to take another look at this and, you know, maybe and come back. Maybe with some tweaks or different information and not, I don't know, I guess furthering this discussion with us, you know, trying to redesign this or, you know, tweak it or make it fit. I'm not seeing it fit from what I see right here. That's just, that's just one member. Catherine. I was, I was also thinking back to the, that was the variance request, whatever it was a year and a half or so ago with the kind of trash area and the covering. I was going to ask Meredith if you had anything easily to hand on this that you could share regarding the situation because that that was a case where I think there was a real like public safety discussion. So yeah, that that was more of a public safety sort of situation. And part of the reason they couldn't move the trash area further back was because of, and away from the street was because of the narrowness of the available space on the parcel. So if they moved the trash back towards the back and shifted their parking spaces forward, the trash truck wouldn't then be able to get to the trash location. So it was sort of a combination of factors. So you had the same thing that you have in this case where the parcel was already developed, you already have a big building up towards the front, just, you know, and then taking up space you're not going to change where that building is. But you had the added factors of the public health and safety, the, you know, being able to have accessible get to it and have it actually work with the trash truck because this was a larger development multi unit building. So there are some similarities, but also some added factors in that prior one. I had another question here. With the side have you have you spoken to the neighbors on the, on the, the side setback Justin. Is that is that relevant. Are they. No, I don't know those neighbors. And I have not spoken to them. They're the ones the pergola though so if they say anything. I'm not worried about them already. That's that's also that's the crew that plays that plays jazz like every Thursday on Liberty street. So they're probably pretty chill. It's my best. You know, like the big band music. It's awesome. It's so great. I think it's Wednesdays. I do hear it periodically. So other thoughts from board members about, I mean, I'm kind of sort of feeling the same as Rob sort of iterated that, that. It looks like there might be ways to make this so that it complied a lot more than it does in this, in this particular instance. I am certainly willing to hear what other board members have to say. Or Brian. Yeah, I agree with that. I just simply had a question to start, which is that in the detailed plan that was presented with some dimensions, including setbacks. There's not a distance from the house to the rear of the proposed carport. And I'll come back to that in a minute but looking at the image. I'm curious if the existing pavement goes beyond the edge of the rear edge of the house. How far into the rear yard, let's say. The answer is yes. Can you bring up the picture? Yep. I can also do a Google image too if you need me to. It's blocked by trees. I'm 90% sure the angle from the Google image is no good. Maybe straight you will give us some insight. Hold on, I think it was in my staff report, I think I pulled up stuff from my GIS mapping software. Are you guys seeing the PDF or are you seeing my mapping software? PDF. Okay, so give me one second because I think I stuck an image in the staff report. I think it was a little clearer on our GIS software. Yep. So hold on, let me switch the share screen. Sorry if this makes people dizzy. So this is the roof line here. Which sticks out further than the house so the house looks like it comes down here but here's pavement back in here. Yeah, so it's a touch. It's not a tongue but there is. It's almost like walkway plus because there used to be a door there. So Meredith where your cursor is if you move your cursor southeast as we would interpret southeast on this map. And then a little bit right, a little bit east. So right there there's actually a door, a defunct door for the house. So it used to open, they did some construction on this at some point but there is a door free standing maybe I feed off the ground that doesn't have a what do you call it a egress. I don't want to egress anymore. And so yeah so I think that that used to go down into like the walkway back there to do something. So yes, there is a bit but it's not a ton. I mean I would guess, what's the standard walkway five feet somewhat that four feet probably. Okay, thanks. So just to wrap up my question and comment it's, I agree that there are probably a couple ways it could be brought into conformance and I think to maybe two suggestions for the for a future application would be possibly to only be requesting one setback, which there's a variance, and also possibly entertain the idea of conforming by making it a single car carport rather than almost to car carport. That certainly seems to be the general feedback of the evening, I think that's correct. Meredith. I'm just going to throw this out here, because the board does have a couple of options here if they want. So there's the motion at the end of the staff report, right, which would be a year and a tonight. They could also theoretically continue the application if Justin felt like he wanted to try and redesign what he was asking for because he doesn't feel like he can get what he's first asking for tonight. If you guys wanted to continue it to the next meeting and he thought he could do some redesign to reduce the variance has been asking for asked for if the board thinks that they might be willing to look at something that wasn't three variances I don't know I'm just trying to try to adjust the possibilities here and stuff. So yeah but let me just freeze you so I can narrow the issue. I don't think I would come back asking for another variance I think this is all or nothing I'll just rebuild to conform. If we're not going to get the variance I'll just like we'll figure something out to rebuild to conform. Mostly just because of the time not because I don't like you lovely people, but I'd like to get something in place before the winter starts. So, so yeah. Okay. I'll just make a general comment I think it's clear that one car poor would confirm conform but looking at, you know, it's is a large home and you have, you know, you have a lot of people living there who, you know, need space for more than one car. I just want to put it out there as we're thinking about, you know, this is a it's a street in an area with a lot of multifamily. And so I think it's beneficial for households to be able to accommodate more than one car, especially with, you know, the winter snow clearance, meaning that the streets aren't available for parking at certain times of year so. Okay, good point. Brian, did you have something else. Yeah, I was just trying to kind of follow what Meredith has said and, or rather what Justin had said, which was to suggest that if you wait a month, you may still have time to build something if you're and, and, but obviously we can't make any promises about anything but just trying to throw it out there from an opt the more of an optimistic perspective about saying, if you wait a month you still might have time to put something up. And it, you know, might be just enough time to, you know, obviously you have to draw a line and say I'm not going to wait any longer from this point. I think it's worth it to, you know, pull the thing closer to the street. Like that. It's the other thing is that if they do, if they do, I mean, I think Justin just said pretty clearly that he can make it within compliance, you know, and have to change it around and that his, you know, he just wants to get it done. He wouldn't even have to come back to a second meeting at this point he wouldn't come back on the 20th that we want to continue it on that his preferences to just either get it or not get it this evening is what I heard. I heard that too. And I just wanted to politely say that you know, if especially if it's not the 20th, I mean, that's not even a month, you're talking about two weeks from now, revisiting this and having something that's right in front of everybody to then make a final decision. It still may provide enough time to make plans and get something built before real winter starts. So, I guess I'm a little concerned about that. I mean, I do think that if he wanted to do that that we would certainly try to accommodate that but also that one of the primary issues here was, was that it sort of just had a kind of a singular aspect to it be much handier to have it wider, and that we were talking about, you know, Meredith, you know, iterated that, you know, with a ADA issue or I think or Rob said it with an ADA issue or some other sort of overwhelming issue that it might consider, but, but to tell him to come back in two weeks, if we're not sure that we would grant, you know, I mean, I just, I mean, I'm not sure that enough would change on it so that we would grant a variance. You know, the variance doesn't seem like it meets the standard, you know, the way the request doesn't seem to meet the standards for the variance. So, I mean, just Justin knows more about what that would look like for him, but I wouldn't want it. I mean, I, I can't see what would change enough. Well, okay, let me just clarify then what I'm thinking, and this would be the last thing from me, because I feel like this is a solution, but nobody else is everybody say yay or nay but that's fine we can go yay or nay it's just this plan that's being proposed does not relate where the bay window is, which means that the relation, the actual proposed location of the carport is not completely understood as it relates to the house and what the limitations on the site are. And I think, you know, let me just ask the question to the board, if the carport was shifted forward, so that the rear setback was being complied with, but then a side yard setback was now at three and a half feet rather than five feet, which is indicated as the minimum in the report, would this be something that we would at least be willing to weigh in on again, not to say we would approve it, but would it be a step in the right direction, and would the indication of where the bay window is, as this carport relates both to the bay window, the rear of the house, and also the minimum 10 foot rear yard setback with those factors reoriented here, retron, would that help us make a better decision. That's my question. I had a follow up to some of that. The bay window, I'm not quite sure exactly how that fits, but I think. Well, just to indicate what is possible, Rob. Okay, let me speak. Next. Yes, but I think that when I spoke earlier about, I don't mean the criteria, I think clarify that I was really thinking more about not the setback, you know, various requests, but the impervious. I think the board's got some pretty good precedent that we're willing to be lenient on setback under certain conditions. I think, I think if it's the public right away, we've asked for sort of input from public works. I think that, you know, weigh in from the adjoining property owners on that is reasonable. I think that the, you know, the impervious, I think it's important not to lose sight of sort of the reason behind the red, you know, it relates to drainage and storm water in the city as a whole. And it's that that's the one I'm on the hung up on. Maybe if the structure was completely over the existing driveway, just covering existing pavement, I think it'd be, it'd be kind of a move point. So that, but that, I don't know, I just hope that piece doesn't get missed about, you know, the, the reasons behind the impervious calculation and that regulation. And, you know, maybe thinking of the sense that if we were review this, this was part of like a major site plan deal where there was all sorts of storm water improvements and others types of infrastructure and things going on the site. We did a lot more things to like sort of like weigh the balance of the entire proposal as to like what the, you know, what the what the benefit is. And we don't have an opportunity here. But I guess my point being is that I was not saying that I don't see criteria here for the setback waiver but I don't see an issue with the setback waivers I think we could we could make that work with this proposal. It's the impervious that I feel like maybe our options haven't been exhausted. Yeah, okay, sorry. Got to ask the question to understand. Did you want to speak. Yeah. Okay, great. Go for it. Great sorry I thought I was muted for a second. The driveways paved right now. Yes, pavement black top. Yeah, just that just asking the question for myself as a citizen the whole city of Montpelier the zoning regulations. Is that considered permeable right now and if you were to build on top of it is it considered adding to it in permeable surface is that the point that was being made earlier I'm really confused. Meredith. Meredith wants to answer this question. I'm waiting for the chair. That's okay. Yeah, thanks Sharon. So, so one impervious surfaces are surfaces that shed water that don't allow infiltration. The current proposal is putting a roof over some areas that are currently permeable where water goes through I understand I think Brian that you're trying to say pulling it back getting it only over the driveway. What I'm going to do here is sort of twist this whole thing around on y'all. Because the, the, one of the big criteria here is that granting the variances is necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property. And it sounds like and I'm sorry Justin you're having to go through as we work through all of this. Justin has some ideas of how to shift this so he can create a conforming carport of one shape or another even if it's not the ideal carport that they really really want which is what they proposed. So, sounds to me like the variances aren't necessary to build a carport for the reasonable use of the property. They can still build one it just won't be this exact one. That's where I'm getting to after all this conversation. I don't make the decision. But I think getting into the nitty gritty about the very the setback specifically and how to make it work right now is probably spinning wheels that don't need to be spun when it's really about. Can a carport be designed that meets the regs. Yes. Is what it sounds like. So, you know, unfortunately, Justin's application came in when I was out with COVID. And so Justin and I weren't able to sit down and have this whole big conversation ahead of time before the application all came through and the public hearing notice went out. But I think also Justin really wanted to see if he could get this carport because it was already started and it's exactly what his tenants want. It's like they won't get exactly what they want, but they'll get something and Justin and I can probably work with the regs to find out what we can fit in. And unfortunately it just means that some of that construction is probably going to come come down, but I just don't want you all going off in the woods versus stand on the path of what the criteria are. So, you've made it clear that you think you could construct one that is in compliance with the regs. You think you could construct one the size that your tenants need with space for two cars for people working two jobs in two different locations. I haven't explored that exact question. I don't want to suppose I'm not under oath so maybe maybe not. It's going to be how it's possible that we could shorten the way it's possible. The width is reduced by a foot on each side. So maybe we get there, right? Like I mean it's 19 feet wide, 2x4s or 4 inches, so you've got 18 feet, wider cars, 6 feet, 7 feet. So like maybe, right, you can pull in C1 a little bit extra. So, the answer Catherine is maybe and maybe I haven't explored it enough. So, wish I could do you better than that. Fine. That's just my, you know, as we're thinking about what your path forward is. I think there's, yeah, Meredith did summarize the situation and the goal here is to support the compliance with the regs. But yeah, it's functionally to me it's functionally a different structure if it's for one car versus to you obviously have larger, you know, group of tenants right now but that could also be the case in the future too for other occupants of the house when whenever the, you know, whatever the future needs are some. Okay. Yeah, I suppose the, that's a grander philosophical discussion that's probably for the city council. Yeah, I guess. Discuss it. There's a motion to continue this to the next meeting. It gives the applicant time to decide whether they withdraw their application and they don't need it. Or we review more information at the next, you know, at the next meeting. If, you know, whichever direction is needed based on after he distills the information that, you know, he got this evening and our feeling. That's actually not a bad idea because then if he withdraws he could apply his permit fees to the administrative, essentially, we can maybe able to finagle that. I think we've done that before. We have a motion. I see that motion. Second that motion okay. Any further discussion. I just have one last comment for I think sounds like Meredith is going to work with Justin to figure this out in the interim. And they'll probably cross this bridge but another piece of information I think be valuable in the site plan is just seeing the width of the current driveway. You know, kind of indicating the shape of the driveway. It just seems like a very critical and basic pieces of information as it relates to the carport structure. So, okay. Yeah, thank you. I'll make one more further discussion for point for one more point yet and this is more philosophical for Meredith, you know, I think like the goal is really that we don't want to see variances right that the zoning allows for the, you know, productive for the properties and I do think as there's like increased uptake on accessory dwelling units, more multifamily like they'll be more scenarios like this where there's like create interest in creative uses for parking and space that's set back from the street so we should you know right now we need to focus on this application but I think it's a data point in terms of what future needs of the neighborhood could be. And I'll see how much time it takes just for this one variance to write so it's like we want to have a smooth process so. Yep, that's a very good point. So let's do this, I think by roll call. So we've got a motion and a second on Brian, how do you both. I'm sorry, I missed that. How do I vote. Yeah. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm confused. The motion. Well, you want to restate the motion. The motion is to continue to the next schedule to be meeting. Sorry, I seconded it. Now we're going to vote on it. So I obviously am in favor of it. Okay. Sorry, that was confusing for me too, but I support this idea. I support it. Okay, Catherine. I support. Rob. Yes. And I am also a yes. So that is unanimous. So the motion was that this will be continued to the next time. If Justin finds himself no longer needing a variance, then Meredith sense fairly hopeful that she can get his money reapplied in a more appropriate fashion and we won't see him on the 20th. And if not, we'll see you on the 20th. So, Justin, do you understand that? Yes, I understood. Okay. I was on the TV PSA with the police. Yeah, I know. I'm in the office tomorrow. Let me like feel free to shoot me an email telling you when's a good time to talk. You know, happy to work with you on this. I'm really sorry. I'm really sick when you got this in through Audra and like the public was already gone. So we didn't get a chance to work one on one on this one. So that I could give you a sense of the chances of getting the variance. But yeah, I think we could probably find a way to reapply the funds if we come up with a way to get you the garage that you want, or we do our best to tweak this around. I think everybody's super interesting. Appreciate all your insight and thoughtfulness about the whole situation. Thank you. Thanks, Justin. Yeah. Okay. So we have minutes to review from the 10 October 2nd meeting. Has everybody had a chance to look at those? I looked at them and I didn't find any issues with them. No, no issues either. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the October 2nd, 2023, DRB meeting. Second. All those in favor. Hi. Hi. Hi. Yes, they passed and approved the meetings. Do we have somebody on the schedule for the 20th Meredith? We do. So the meeting is, it's a conditional use, but it really shouldn't be that difficult. It's for a new office space at 36 college street. So college hall owned by VCFA. But everything that the VCFA has been doing in there falls under the. Academic institution. And so technically it's a change of views for them to rent out part of a political office. And it currently falls under what we call office definition, which is current conditional use and mixed use residential. And FYI that the proposal is to change all of that in the zoning amendments that will hopefully be adopted by January or February. The office use will actually disappear and become part of personal and professional services. And so that's what we're going to do. And then we're going to move on to the next slide, which will be. Approvable. All over the place, including, you know, medical offices, things like that. Things that don't rise to medical clinic or hospital. Medical office, dentist's office, things like that. And political offices. But when you get a chance, I think those new draft regulations will get posted probably by next week, because it's going to go before planning commission. So I think that's going to be a big one. And so I think that those new draft regulations that I think are going to make things better for the board. And you may be seeing fewer applications in some cases. No, that's, that's always a good thing. I can see everything. I just wanted to say that I thought we worked really well together tonight that there was a lot of interest and a lot of comments. And we got a lot of different perspectives on it. But I would really appreciate it as a chair if we tried to work through me so that it's not a big deal when it's a deadline. I feel like it works pretty simply. But if we were to get a bigger meeting and we didn't run it through the chair, then it gets a really chaotic. So I would just encourage people to do that on just because I feel like it'll make for a better meeting. Oh, I'm still familiarizing myself with the process. So. Okay. Apologies for not. And honestly, the questions are always great. What was finding a little tricky was you calling on the next person, you know, if I, if I'm like, you're going, okay, that's what I said and she wants to talk about it now. So I'm going to talk to her, you know, so just trying to keep it going through there so that it all just works a little bit better, you know, agreed. And I just was responding to what I was saying. Yeah. So no worries, no worries. I do have one last question about the car for everybody to think about. It's nothing to do with design really. It's just a zoning question. Yeah. And this is for Meredith. So Sharon, can I ask Meredith a question? Yes, you may. Okay. Meredith or anyone else who's knowledgeable about this. Is there, are there any. Allowances to anything. Permable coverage exceptions. If the carport has a green roof, for example. Yeah, I mean, I don't, I don't, I don't think. It's not going to build. They're not going to do this. But yes, if, if someone can show. That what they're doing is not going to be shedding the water, right off, then we will count that as a permeable surface. So, but it would require data. Right. So there, there are permeable pavers there at one point, the Gary presence is addition for their memory care unit. The original plan actually had a green roof. And so the water would be contained in that area and used. And so for that situation. We were discussing the theory of having that not count as impermeable, at least the areas on it that were green. So they were going to get sort of a reduction on what that. What that was, but we haven't had the five years I've been here. We have not had a single green roof get permitted. So I can't tell you exactly what we would be looking for on that. We would probably end up going and trying to reach out somewhere out west or somewhere where they do these green roofs more often to try and figure out what kind of data they use. But yeah, I mean that we might do that it's not. There's no like specific allowances in the regs. It all comes down to what the definition of impermeable is. And there's a clause in there about like getting proof that something is not impermeable. That's where we would. Job align, right? It's where we get where I actually am allowed to get a little creative. Okay. This is kind of the origin of the question about. Is there black top there now? And then, you know, thinking about it in reverse, if it's not, if a green roof isn't required to create permeable or water collecting air site area, then is building a roof structure over a roof. That's part of that's one of the definitions. He's not saying that the roof over the pavers is new impervious surface. None of us are saying that part of the roof is over what is currently going to be covered by the carport. Right. But I didn't, it was never indicated how much. And I think that was kind of. Yeah. He gave a, he gave a total square footage that was being added. That is not the square footage of the carport. It's in the application. I don't remember exactly what it is, but he gave an exact amount that is going to be, would be grass that is going to be covered by the carport. Okay. I didn't see that. I apologize. I read that's why, that's why we got to the percentages. I didn't go out and measure. Right. That's 66 versus 60%. Is that right? Yeah. 66% versus 60. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Well, that, that's curious because the carport itself is only 400 square feet. So the carport was adding 174 square feet of impervious surface. If I remember correctly, and it's on his application. If you go to the zoning attachment, I believe that's where it is. All right. Well, apologies because I missed something else that was being added because the carports only 400 square feet. Right. You're saying he's in excess of the, of the. When added to the rest of the impervious surface already existing on the site. Yeah. He's adding 174, I think square feet of impervious surface is what the application is saying. I'm trusting his number. Right. So he's already in excess of it then. Right. He's already in excess. So adding more increases the nonconformity beyond what is allowed through a waiver. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. I understand now. I missed that earlier. Fixated on those numbers while we were talking about, I was just trying to make it make sense when I was looking at the actual size. Feel free to always email me ahead of meetings or give me a call today. I read this. Five minutes before the meeting. All disclosure. So. Okay. Anyway. Okay. No, I was just following up on a tangent to the green roof, but had he come with a proposal that said, we're going to take up the macadam and put down permeable. Driveway material. That would have changed the calculus. Right. Yeah. I mean, that's what we did. Took out the caddim and put in gravel and blocks with large holes in them. Exactly. That's, we've had other people do that where they're adding to the impervious surface in one area, but they subtract enough somewhere else to still stay within their max percentage. But I think, you know, with this situation, they're, they're not, that's, that's more expense than, than they can. Right. But yeah, we've had people do that. We recommend that to people all the time. Right. And I have to say the macadam on that driveway looks really nice. It does. Sounds like an 18 month half-life around here. Yeah. Meredith, did you just make note? I think that Catherine had a really good point about, about this issue coming up more and more as we work on our infills. We work on additional dwelling units that. You know, Catherine's got a very good point that people are going to need cars. And so I don't know if that's on the planning list somewhere or, but just add it to the list. Yeah. I'm just going to flag few planning commission. A lot of them really wanted to like tell people they didn't need to have any off street parking. Yeah. Which just blows my mind. And, you know, you know, it becomes an issue, right? Cause setbacks are partly to prevent the snow from ending up on someone else's property or all your snow banks ending somewhere where when they melt, they go on some, if the flow messes up someone else's drainage, that's what a lot of people are thinking about. Yeah. Which just blows my mind and, you know, you gave DPW conniptions. So, but I will, I will raise that as do, you know, it becomes an issue, right? Cause setbacks are partly to prevent the snow from ending up on someone else's property or, you know, that's what a lot of those setbacks are for, for those, for the garages. But I will raise it to see if there's something we can do. As a way to, to find ways to allow that covered parking. I mean, it's, it's a good thing. It's also, it technically it's not essential. I mean, that's the, even though you really want it. I don't know is the law would support that. So we'll have to see what we can come up with. Yeah. I want to say, yeah, thanks for, yeah, the plus one on that chair. And, you know, I like personally I'm all about trying to reduce. Card dependence in use, but I just think from a market perspective, as people are, yeah, having more ADUs or making the choice to convert to multifamily. Like there is going to be more of a market expectation of the parking. So I think we just have to be. Prepared for that. And you know, hey, longer term, maybe there's going to be some amazing car share somewhere, right? Where we can all just go there and it'll be available at exactly the right time. I'm ready for that. So. You know, if we just had a parking garage downtown. Well, I wouldn't give her that one. I couldn't help it. All right. I would entertain an emotion to adjourn. So moved. Yeah. Second. Yep. Second. Thanks. All those in favor. I. Hi. Hi.