 Well, I guess we could get started. It's five o'clock. We've got four of us here. I don't know. I imagine all the people are going to join in. Yeah, Brooks just showed up. Hi, Brooks. So are we going to start being in person again? What's the scoop? So that's something to do. Let's ask you guys and I'll do it right now. So starting in April. We have three choices. We can continue remote. The legislation passed by the state goes through the year. As I understand it. We can go to. Like we were doing before. Or we can go fully in person. Most folks seem to appreciate the hybrid model. What are people's thoughts on that anyways? The hybrid seems confusing to me, but. Yeah, hybrids is the worst. What about, you know, staff? Right now. Yeah. It's considerably more, more complicated. For staff. To hybrid or. Hybrid. Yeah. I don't know. To me would be in person or. Zoom. That's our choice, Scott. Yeah. I don't think it's that complicated, but maybe that's because I do it a lot more. It. It's just hard to, you know, it is hard to see everybody, but even though I mean, I'm zoom, we don't. We don't see a lot of the participants anyways. Yeah. I don't have the camera. I think there's something to be said for maintaining the hybrid option. I agree it was complicated the few times we did it. Although I thought I kind of, I agree it was complicated the few times we did it. Although I thought I got better towards the end. I agree, Jeff. I think we would get better at it if we. Get that regularly. I mean, I'm happy to do any of the above. I think we've had very good attendance with having the hybrid. Option that maybe would allow people to participate. On some evenings when they otherwise couldn't get there in person. So that's, that's the only reason I maybe retain the option for. How about if we think about this and. For the next meeting, next meeting will be zoom and then how about if we decide at that time. Okay. So I guess we'll officially start the developer review board meeting for March 8th. And assuming that there's public here, I will say that we take up things in the order they are on the agenda. And when we call each item. Scott will admit people who want to participate either as applicant or as public. And they will get sworn in. As appropriate at that time. We also ask for people to give. Staff Scott. Their mailing address for follow-up on this. Communications, everything is online and posted. Right. Yeah. Let's say yes. Minutes. I actually have to look and see. I don't see any minutes posted with this meeting, but from last meeting I have minutes to look at. So. I will look at those. If people can look at last week's minutes, and if they have any comments, let me know. And the first item on the agenda then is the consent agenda. And that is a 9717 Curtis Avenue. Is the applicant here for that? Yeah, Brad, do we have a few agenda changes? We have. 452 North Avenue has asked for deferral. And I think star farm has as well. No. There's a couple of items to know. Thanks for bringing that up AJ. So 43 star farm road. Has requested deferral. Ending for six months deferral requires your action to grant a three month extension. So their request is posted. And then. 83 central Avenue. For a short-term rental. We've come across some new information about that. I think Mary posted an updated memo. I think it's a little bit more complicated. I think it's a little bit more complicated. Looking doesn't live there. So it's a little bit more. Complicated than as reflected in the staff report. So that was posted. Recently to the. Posted this morning. A memo. Okay. It would, it would be helpful. To if new things are posted. To put a date next to him or something. Cause I, I didn't look to see everything new was posted. I had looked at everything. A few days ago. And I didn't know there was something new on that. So. Just concerned. So Brad, do you want to take up the deferrals? Yes. So we have. So are we deferring a central avenue because of that? No. What was that? Central. That was not being deferred. Okay. Referral requests. Our 43 star firm. And again, that's going to take action by the board. And for. 452. North avenue. So we've got two deferrals to do. Yep. So. We could do that first. You know, is there anybody in the public to hear for 452 north avenue. If you'd like to speak on this item, raise your hand. I don't see any hands. So can we get a motion to deferral? Okay. Okay. Can we have a motion to defer for 452 north avenue to a date? To be determined. So moved. Second. Okay. All in favor. Unanimous. Okay. I don't see any hands. So can we get a motion to defer this to a date certain. 52 one. No, this is uncertain. At this point. Okay. Can we have a motion to defer 452 north avenue to a date. To be determined. So moved. Second. Okay. I don't see any hands. Unanimous. Okay. And then I was going to start from. And is this also to a date to be determined? This doesn't need to be. It's not a public hearing item. So it's just a question or whether you'll grant a three month extension or not. I will make a motion on. To be determined. Second on that. Jeff. Okay. Discussion. All in favor. Okay. So now we can go to our. Consent agenda. Which is. 97117 Curtis Avenue. Is the applicant here for that? Yeah. And now I'm looking to. Find them again. There we go. It's a witski. Eric. So the staff has recommended this for approval. Do you have any. Any difficulty with their recommendation? No, no, that sounds great. Okay. The staff has anybody on the board have an objection to treating this as a. Consent item. And is there anybody here from the public? Scott on. 97117 Curtis Avenue. Like to weigh in, raise your hand, please. Going on. Nobody's got their hand up. Okay. Get a motion from the board for. 97117 Curtis Avenue. I'll make a motion. So on CP 229. 97117 Curtis Avenue. I move that we approve the application and doc staff findings and recommendations. Checking on that. Chase. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor. Hi. What's on that? Okay. Eric. You're all on the board. I'll make a motion. So on CP 229. 97117 Curtis Avenue. And what's on that? Okay. Eric, you're all set. Great. Thank you so much. For you just as we get to this. The. My mistake was there was a new ordinance pass that had to do with. Short-term rentals and bed and breakfast. Or is that pending? I think it's pending, isn't it? The short answer is it's pending. I'll touch on that under other business. Okay. The city council approved it. The mayor hasn't signed it. I'm not sure. I'm just trying to read it in the zoning. Site, the website with the zoning regulations and pending regulations. And it wasn't. Clear. But anyways, next item is for 15 North Avenue. Is the applicant here for that? I see bill. And is anybody else. Here to speak on this application. Public or applicant. Nobody is raising their hand. I don't know. I don't know. Okay. So this is bill Lockwood, right? I see. Bill, I have to swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth under pain and penalty of perjury? Yeah. His hands off and I've asked him to unmute, but it still shows as muted. Can you unmute bill? I think God, can you unmute them? Scott as the host. I think I can only ask him to unmute. If you. Not muted. I just want to know what you un-mute. Who's stymied here. Maybe he could try calling in Scott. Yeah. Bill, if you have handy access, the website. There's a few phone numbers you could call to dial in. This meeting. On the phone. Do you want to come back to bill. Okay. Why don't we move to the next one. Okay. So the next one is. 42 Marvel Avenue. Again, this is a request for a bed and breakfast. Is the applicant here for that one? That would be Alexander, yes. Sarah Alexander, right? I see Sarah Alexander, okay. And is anybody else here to speak on 42 Marble App besides the applicant? If so, raise your name, please. It's just Sarah. Okay, Sarah, do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain of penalty or burgery? I did. Okay, you've got a great purple square there. Okay, so there's some question on this one that the staff raised as to the driveway and access there. And I guess I'll also throw in the approved site plan, shows a garage. I take it that garage was never built. It's scheduled to be built in the spring. Okay, okay. So then your comments on access and things like that for the driveway. Yeah, so Mary, am I reading the denial correctly? Is that it's based on not enough parking for the bed and breakfast use? You need two for the house and then one per bedroom rented, is that right? That's correct. The insufficiency of parking on site. At the time of application, the owner did not request a parking waiver. Through an email now, she has requested a one-space parking waiver. Okay, and so the garage is two spaces and then one in the, and it would be one in the gravel drive. Is that how you would calculate it? I think a garage is just one space, isn't it? Yes, it's a garage. So there's room for one space in the garage and then I can fit three cars. Actually, I don't know what is required for like the zoning purposes, but I personally have fit three cars in the space that will be in front of the garage. So then in total, there will be four spots. But what I was informed was that the problem wasn't the number of spots, but more the flexibility of, like because it's a stacked driveway. Yep. And so typically you would have to make a commitment to be a valet. Right, so the, also I saw on the notice that it said that the bed and breakfast was maybe gonna, there, the idea was gonna be, it was gonna be in the second floor of the garage, but that's not true. What my plan is I have a three bedroom home. I would occupy two of the bedrooms with my one car and then rent out one of the bedrooms and then they would be granted one spot. And then in terms of the valet, I run a business and work out of my home and I am always at home and I would easily be able to commit to offering a valet. So my valet, I mean, switch cars around, not bring a car somewhere else. Brad, that site plan that Scott is showing is the one that was submitted. It's not the site plan that was approved for the replacement garage, which I uploaded. Right, that's in the staff report too. Isn't it just the garages and the, Sara, so do you have cars coming for your business? No. And so you just have to back out into Marvel Ave. I take it when you're there. Correct. So Mary, is it, would we be granting the waiver? I know this is kind of a weird question. She needs how many spaces? Is it four or three? Three. Three. So we'd be granting a waiver of one space. Would we be granting it as to the house or to the bed and breakfast if that, if you understand the question? As to the single family use. Sara, how many cars do you have? One. So if they can park three cars, do they need the waiver, Mary? Stacked parking can't be accommodated for a single family home unless there is valet parking. So that would be the requirement is to, with or without parking waiver, it's still stacked, still two cars or three cars. Okay. And you're okay making that commitment, Sara? Yeah. But if she commits to being a valet, then she doesn't need the parking waiver, correct? Seems to be true. Go ahead, Kayla. I guess that's a question to the applicant. It's like, if we determine that it's either a parking waiver or you're agreeing to valet, is there one of those two that's your preference for how you would run this? I guess maybe I'm a little confused then too. So if I went down like the parking waiver route, then I wouldn't need to offer to valet. I would just be granted that extra spot and then it would be kind of like we figure it out as we go on. I think you need the valet no matter what. Right, so I guess that's where I'm kind of confused. I didn't really think of it as two separate things. No, I don't think it is. I think because it's tandem parking and the bed and breakfast car could be blocked by the resident's car. That's the reason for the valet. And these are the types of applications I've voted against consistently because I think this concept of bed and breakfast and valet is just, it stretches the concept a little too far. I appreciate the applicant's representation that shall always be there to move a car. But that's impossible. That's impossible. And so I think we have approved these and I voted against them, but I just want to say, this is where I find we're stretching the bed and breakfast concept too far with these Airbnbs. Jeff, how do you feel about the parking waiver itself leaving the valet aside? I think the parking waiver is fine. It's just the valet component, the stacked parking. There are only certain limits imposed in the ordinance that I guess I'm willing to stretch and this is one where we're trying to force a use into an area that doesn't have the physical space to accommodate it. And the concept of allowing a phantom valet to get around that hurdle really frustrates me. And the city council is continuing to try to find a solution to our bed and breakfast problem. But this is just a little too far for me. This idea of issuance of a permit based on valet does require a written agreement with the city. It will be enduring for the life of this use. So if the property were sold and they wanted to continue the use, that written guarantee would carry to the next owner. Yeah, I mean, I'm with Jeff. I don't like this valet thing because it doesn't work and it's not reasonable and it creates problems because it's impossible. I mean, it's just functionally impossible. I'm more interested in whether or not you meet the standards on a parking waiver based on the single family residence. See, to me, where we've done before is we've granted parking waivers for single family residences because we're trying, I mean, I know where marble avenue is. The applicant has one car. Most applicants who buy a place like marble avenue would have one car. It's the enduring nature of that that is the question. That's what I struggle with. And I think it makes sense is if the applicant works from home, given where this is, that one car is generally buried and the bed and breakfast car is out easy to can go in and out. But that's why I asked Mary the question sort of where is the waiver attached to? Can I chime in really quick? Go ahead. So in terms of like being available to like offer the valet service, like I do, I am home 90% of my life and with the fact that I'd be renting out a room inside of my home, I would be, I would communicate consistently with the people that are here. It's unlike if they were up in like the second floor of my garage and they were just in and out passing by and we might not have been ever meet face to face. I can confidently say that I would definitely be able to either plan ahead for, if I wasn't going to be around later that day or vice versa, I think these people would be inside of my home. So I would be communicating with them a lot and I really just can't foresee an instance where someone would be stuck in my driveway behind my car or I would need to get access to my car and I wouldn't have either communicated that ahead of time with the person or I just, I don't really see where that situation would come up given the fact, like I said, that they'd be in my home and I would be communicating with them. One could imagine scenarios where there would be issues but that's one, imaginations are easy to beat. Any other issues or comments that people wanna make or ask the applicant about? I think the most part, I think we have to discuss this at deliberative, okay? So we will close the public hearing here and probably deliberate at the end of the hearing tonight. We're gonna listen if you want. Okay, thank you. Now the next one is 83 Central Avenue. Is the applicant here for that? That's Andrea Noon and Scott. I see that. Is anybody else? Hi, Andrea. And thank you, Mary, for pronouncing my name correctly, that was wonderful. Oh, one thing right today. Is anybody else here to speak on this application? It looks like there are. If you'd like to speak on this, raise your hands. If you're on the phone, I see a couple of people like that. You can raise your hand by pressing star nine. Okay, I just see two folks with their hands raised in addition to the applicant, Brad. Do you want me to unmute everyone to swear in? Yeah, and I don't usually see them somewhere in the screen. You will in a moment. I have Vicki Graff and Kitty Bartlett. Okay, sorry. One more, Rebecca. Okay. So I'll swear these four people in a few, four would swear to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain and penalty of perjury. I do. I do. I do. I do. Okay. So right off the bat, Mary, you said there was some new information on this site. Yes, I was the project manager. I am the project manager for this. We received information yesterday. I should back up the application states that the applicant owner lives there and the intention was to rent one room. The property transfer from January says this is her primary residence and gives this address as being the grantee. Yesterday we received information that the property owner has not yet moved in and has been doing some short-term rentals in the meantime. So I've received a voicemail from Andrea saying, yes, she is moving in. She intends to abide by what she's requested, which would be owner occupied, one room rental. And the other side of that would be not to rent it out until she occupies. At present, she does not have a permit to do a bed and breakfast. Nor would she qualify if she does not have residency there. Andrea. Hi there, yes. So I just recently purchased this place in, obviously at the beginning of January and it previously was occupied by 15 feral cats. So there was quite a stench that was there. So I've spent the last six to seven weeks or so doing some just smell detoxification of the place. So I have not had the opportunity to move in. I was also out of town last weekend. So I again, haven't had the opportunity to move in there yet. That is 100% my intention. I was previously living at another property and that's where all my stuff currently is. It is 100% my intention to be moving there with my partner and my sister and to be short-term renting the third bedroom. Obviously with all of the renovations and kind of internal work that I've been doing, it has cost quite a bit of money on my part. So I thought that it was okay to Airbnb a couple of rooms until I know that there's the ordinance happening until that passed. So that was under that presumption. If I'm wrong, I apologize for that but my intention for applying for this is absolutely to only rent out one room on a short-term rental basis. Okay. So, Mary, then if I am reading what you wrote correctly, you're saying that on the staff report, it's conditioned on owner occupancy, right? Correct. And that the applicant will be moved, states that they're moving to it. So is there any issue between your latest memo and what the applicant testified to and your staff memo? It seems like it's all consistent. It's conditioned on owner occupancy. She can't rent it till owner occupancy commences and that would be the condition and the approval. Do I have that right? That's correct. That's how I wrote the staff report. Okay. All right. I want to make sure I understood that. And to not rent it out until that time. Right. On the bed and breakfast. Yeah. If I can pipe in, I mean, this is Mary's project but I just want to clarify that what's occurring now is different from what could actually be permitted. So right now it's a whole unit offsite owner whereas what could be permitted is better within the unit of the owner living there. Right. I think that's pretty clear. Yeah. Right, right. Yeah, so that's why it can't go on. And I appreciate the cat issue. I've run by this place 100 times every year and there was a colony of feral cats including a really lovely orange male that lived under this porch. So I appreciate the de-catification scent. Yes, absolutely. That tabby was eating garbage, not the tabby. The orange one was eating garbage this morning when I ran by FYI. So I don't know, someone needs to feed him. That's the external portion is a work in progress still. Yeah, yeah. Mary, could you speak to the parking? Also I'm a little confused by the site plan and how the parking works here. The approved site plan that we have for this and I'm sorry if I complicated the review by sharing that but the approved site plan, the original site plan showed a driveway that was I think 20 by 24 that certainly accommodate the required parking. Then there was a site plan indicating the construction of a handicap ramp which appears to have taken one side of the driveway. So it is a single lane driveway now. Certainly can accommodate two parking spaces required for the single family home. But if you look at this in the aerial photographs or in the GIS maps, this lot continues through to Proctor Place. And that is a driveway that is currently used for parking by folks on Proctor Place. So the lot is 200 feet deep with frontage on two different street fronts and a hundred feet of that is just this drive towards the backyard. So there is, it is impervious. So there is room to park any additional vehicles back there as long as there was an understanding with those folks that share an easement who do park there are notified that if there's two cars they would have to park in tandem. But it's a 100 foot long access through to Proctor Place. So the residents could arguably park in the front on the central lab side, stacked which would be allowed for the... Tandem for the single family residents. Tandem for the single family. And then the Airbnb guests could theoretically park in the portion of the lot that it accessed from Proctor Place is that what you're saying? Correct, and it's all fee simple. This property owner owns that entire 100 foot access drive in the rear as well. And my intention would be to actually flip-flop that and I would be parking in the rear and the guests would be parking in the front just to be clear. And have you had any conversations with the two or the property owner that also fronts your lot? And do they have an easement to park on that whole area next from Proctor Place, do you know? I personally, I believe Mary had said something of this sort, my intention was to speak with them as well. I also, just to be clear, the prior owner needed the handicap railing. My intention this summer, once it's warm enough is to remove that as well. So there would theoretically at that point be three points of parking. Okay, thank you. So at this point, so there's three people who I can't see anymore because of the screen right now but there we go, Kitty, Rebecca and Vicki. You folks wanna comment, maybe you can identify yourself, say where you live or why you're speaking on this. I suspect Rebecca, maybe Rebecca Grannis who owns the property on Proctor Place. So I just needed Kitty to speak. I will happily speak, but I defer to Vicki and Rebecca who gets it's Rebecca who owns the property on Proctor Place. So I think they could speak to that easement issue. I just wanted to hop on the call. I was concerned that the property is already being rented out and that there's been no conversations with the neighbors. It's a nice quiet street and this is actually kind of flustered a number of homeowners around here and trying to get their arms around what's happening. We are looking forward to owner occupancy and the feral cap problem has in fact not gone away. We would love to not feed them. They've just moved anyway. So we're looking forward to having someone across the street who's invested in the neighborhood and where this is not a hotel, which is how it's operating now. And I had the question too about the stacked parking and how that would work. This is a really tight neighborhood in terms of parking. We've just got the one side of the street and it gets super busy with beach parking and park parking already. So that would be a concern that I would want thoroughly addressed. And you don't park on that property though, is that right? No, I'm across the street. Okay, okay. Who does park on that property? That would be Rebecca and Vicki. Okay, so maybe we could switch to Rebecca and Vicki and find out what's going on. Hey Rebecca, you should be able to speak if you want to mute. Okay, hi Scott, hi Mary, how are you ready? How's it going? Hello. Yes, I am Rebecca Granison. I own six, eight proctor place, which long time historically ago belonged to the Brunel family as well. And so yeah, that long 20 foot wide by 100 foot strip of property that goes from Andrea's spot at Central all the way up to Proctor Place. We have an easement for that piece to use as I don't remember the exact language of the easement, but essentially says that that needs to be left open so that I have access to my two driveways, one to the east side of eight proctor and also to the west side of six proctor place. So I think that with people parking in the currently graveled spot if there were cars parked there, it does make access kind of tight. I certainly know there's, I mean, I think there are probably ways to work it out. It's a little bit cramped back there for sure. But I think there's space, but as I think Ms. Noonan had said, I think in order to make that work, they would definitely have a conversation about like snow plowing and clearance and access for tenant cars coming in and out of eight proctor and all that, which I haven't, Ms. Noonan hasn't reached out yet. So we haven't had to be able to have a conversation about it, but there's definitely something we need to do in order to make that work. I guess I'm really having trouble understanding how the parking here works. Don't you have access? And I don't know of things along the streets right there. Like just bike down them and never pay attention to names, but so the street that's heading North, South, I don't know, I'm sorry, East West, isn't your driveway coming off of that street? I'm not sure what the name of the street is. Right, so if you come into the neighborhood, the East West street is Harrison Avenue. And then when you're coming down Harrison heading towards the lake, use the left-hand turn onto Central Avenue, which is sort of the frontage for Ms. Noonan's property. And then your next left, which is really Proctor Place and the bike path. So a lot of people actually think that that's not a road, but it is a road. Like sometimes we drive down and people are like, what are you doing here? I'm like, no, no, it is a road. That's how I get to my house. So I get to my driveway. So how is the access from Ms. Noonan's property related to your property? Right, so if you come down Proctor Place and then my properties don't actually face Proctor Place itself, they actually face that 100 foot, 20 foot wide easement. So essentially, if you go down Proctor, you would turn left onto that 100 foot long, 20 foot wide strip of driveway, which actually belongs to Ms. Noonan. And my two properties face that. So the only way to get to the driveways of my house is to come down that stretch of land. And so that's what's in the easement there. Rebecca, this is Jeff. Obviously cameras all have property right issues, but I guess I'm interested to the extent you know as to the easement, is it simply an access easement or does the easement, you know, in the aerial and the staff report, there are two cars parked on the easement. Yeah, so I guess what I'm trying to figure out is do you park there? And is that allowed by the easement or is it simply an access easement if you the right to access or proper? Yeah, so the easement, as far as my understanding is strictly is for the purpose of access. And I believe what, you know, that aerial photo that I saw there too, and I think it might have been still during some construction time. So there might have been vehicles parked there as well. We certainly do like my mom and my tenants do, Vicki who's on the call, my mom lives at Six Proctor. You know, we have each unit has its two parking spaces and driveways. Sometimes the overflow parking goes out onto that easement space, but ultimately we have all the parking we need off of that easement and it's the easement says for the purpose of access to my driveways and property. So the easement doesn't say that I can park on it. In behavior and reality, we do park on it sometimes but it's not necessary. Currently I pay to have it plowed so that I have access to it. And I did the cost or whatever of like when we did renovations before I put in the road, you know, resurface the road and all that kind of stuff. So it was talking about access, that portion of the property that we're talking about that is in front of your two properties, right? That's what we're talking about, that being access. If that stays open, you have access and you have no need to park in that area. Is that true? Correct. Okay, and Andrea would also have access from either street and could exit vehicles in either direction. Currently there's a shed in the way so you couldn't, currently it's not possible to drive all the way through from street to street. There's not clear driving access through the property currently. There's a shed in the way. But you could park- Unless you wanted to like off-road it over the lawn. But you could park on the side of the shed and then you could park on the other side of the shed coming from opposite directions, right? Yeah, currently that's not driveway space at the moment. Oh, in front of the shed? Yeah, like right on, sort of like in front of my property, behind her shed it is graveled. Oh, I, oh, I'm trying to see where it goes. On sort of- So the everyday is right in that right of way. Say that again? The shed is right in that right of way or right at the end of it. Correct. Yeah, so that shed sort of like is the book, is the very end of that easement. So like, if you were to drive all the way through Central Avenue from Proctor, you'd have to go through the shed. Correct. Yes. There's no way to go from one side of Proctor place to Central Ave. Yep. There's a little- If there was a car parked right in front of that shed, could you not access the driveway or under which one that is six or eight Proctor? Yeah, they would have to be parked, I think off to the north a bit for that to work out. There's ways to do it. It just, it's a matter of like having a conversation of like where cars need to be to allow for turning in and out of the driveway at eight Proctor. And Rebecca, I'm more than happy to have that conversation with you. I'm sorry, I haven't already. Yeah. Kind of like I alluded to or stated at the beginning, that would be a temper, for me, a temporary parking place until I can, until it's warm enough for me to take out a sawzall and get rid of the handicapped parking. Yeah. Yeah, we should definitely, we should definitely connect and work those details out. Totally. If you're interested, Brad, I have the language for the easement in front of me. That's yes? Yes. Well, we can't do much about it. Also included in this conveyance is an easement in common with grand tours, their air successors are assigned for a right of way to provide ingress and egress from Proctor Place, so-called, to and from the existing driveway and shall be 20 feet by 100 feet long. So this shed that's there, right? Andrea, that's a shed that is useful on your property, I take it. Yes, I store some of my building tools there, construction tools there. Okay. So you've got some, and I'm looking at the photograph that was in the staff report, there's some object at the other end of the driveway. Is that a truck or what is that? I don't know if you've seen that. You know, there's no problem accessing the driveways from the east side, is that right? Correct. There's nothing, so you can drive all the way to this shed that we just talked about. Yes. Once you remove the handicap ramp, you can park two cars wide. Correct, yes. Okay, we have more questions for the applicant or the neighbors from the board. Oh, can I address one thing? I think Rebecca had stated something at the beginning about kind of her desires for who would be living at this place and that they'd be a neighborhood type person. I just wanted to address that because you may not have seen me, but I have been there every day and my intention is 100% to be a part of the neighborhood and I've done a lot inside for the house and because it's cold enough, you guys haven't seen me do anything outside in terms of enhancing the external portion of this and obviously then enhancing neighborhood stench, hopefully. So I just wanna be really clear. I'm excited to meet you all and definitely look forward to being a part of the neighborhood as well. We do have a few more hands up, Brad, for folks to speak. So Rebecca, while you're still unmuted, can you give us your mailing address for notice of the decision? Yes, I already got the initial notice. I'm at 58 Conger Avenue. Okay, great. And while I'm at it, Kitty, I don't think we got your mailing address for the record. I'm at 80 Central Avenue. Okay, great, thank you. So there's nobody else asking to speak, is there? So we have Vicki Graf looking to speak. Oh, okay. And we have Joan Shannon as well. Okay, so Vicki, do you wanna speak? Yeah, yeah, this is Vicki Graf. I live at Six Proctor Place. So in one of those two properties on my daughter's residence, I would just, you know, I think just addressing the parking issue and the access would be, and it sounds like, you know, just where Rebecca said, just to know that because parking is tough. You know, we are now the parking area for, for the park these days, because, you know, it costs money to park there. So it tends to get pretty busy in our neighborhood for parking. And it used to be able to park on Proctor Place, but you can't park there anymore because it's now a bike path. So it does, parking does get tight. So we really need to kind of think about that piece of parking on a nice day. There's no parking on Harrison. And it's, you know, not because, just because people are trying to get to the beach. So I think just in parking, but, you know, I think Ms. Noonan will, you know, we all sort of, as she moves to the neighborhood, she'll know that piece of the puzzle too. And, you know, we try to make parking work for everyone. So, but I guess just the issue around parking is critical. Absolutely. I'm more than happy to communicate with you around that as well and just be, you know, open to whatever you think is best as well. I'm going to say one thing that would, may get discussed at the deliberative, but I have a lot of trouble understanding how much space is there for driveway with or without the handicap ramp. And I am having trouble reading these older site plans that are filed and knowing how much width there is. And so we may ask for some dimensions on a few things that would help us clarify some stuff. We'll see in the deliberative whether we do that. And I see Joan Shannon. I have to swear you in. Just wanted to tell the truth and hold truth on the panel with your perjury. I do. Okay, so you wanted to say something? Yes, thank you for the opportunity. And I'm sorry I haven't had the opportunity yet to meet Ms. Noonan. And it's kind of an unfortunate way to be, for neighbors to be getting to know one another. I don't have any objection to the permit that is being requested in terms of an owner-occupied home, renting one room is consistent with what we're envisioning with the new short-term rental ordinance as well as at least a possibility under the current ordinance. But I'm very concerned that this is being requested without either having talked to the neighbors about where that parking would go, not having that worked out. And most of all, that it's been operating without a permit, which doesn't seem like a good faith way to approach requesting a permit. And it's been operating in a way that's inconsistent with what's being asked in that the whole house has been rented three bedrooms and the entire unit. It isn't owner-occupied. So it seems like this is not, as you all well know, this is not a by-right request, it's conditional. And when you go into it, this is unlike many of the applications that are before you, because I know a lot of people got told over the last two years to sit and wait and see where the city council is going with this. But I think that we warned where we were going with this in December. And so it's been well-known that we're requiring owner-occupancy. And despite that, and despite the knowledge that a permit's required and a permit has been applied for, it's been rented without a permit in ways far beyond what's being requested here. And I've heard a lot of concern from the neighbors about what has been happening there. So it seems more appropriate to me that when you have owner... I don't see why if faith would be extended here when it feels like it's been abused. Neighbors have been complaining to me about what's happening there at this point. So why not? I don't foresee in the future there being any problem with what's being requested, but why not go through that process once owner-occupancy has been established, which it has not at this point. And if you can, the whole place is furnished. So those are my concerns. Thank you for your time. Thanks, Joe. So we definitely have Jones mailing address. Vicki, I'm just getting yours if you could pipe in for a second. Yeah, it's Six Proctor Place. Thank you. Vicki Graff, G-R-A-F. So do we have any more questions from the board for the applicant? May I address Jones, Shannon, comments? Awesome, thank you. And thanks, Jones, for bringing those up. I do, I want the opportunity to be able to address all concerns and any concerns from neighbors and everyone. So I guess the first thing that is first is the place was first furnished, first fully furnished about a week and a half ago when I finished some of that internal cleanup. And I do apologize if I was wrong on this, but I was under the belief that I was able to air BNB without a permit prior to the ordinance fully passing. So again, apologies if I was wrong. This is the first property I've ever bought in Burlington and it's so recent. So I didn't live in Burlington before. So prior to purchasing this place, I didn't actually know that anything had passed around short-term rental ordinances until I purchased it. So again, apologies if it comes across as abuse of the property or privilege or anything like that that was absolutely not my intention. It was just based on my knowledge of how Airbnb operated and what was allowed in the city. I have Airbnb in Burlington before. So I was unaware of a permit requirement there. I think the other piece of it is again, I think that, excuse me, I am very, very open to communicating with everyone. And as Joan mentioned, this is obviously a very unfortunate way to meet the neighbors, but I want you all to know that if ever a concern, please feel free to come directly to me to be able to address that and discuss that. I do hope that the council does put faith in my intentions here because I do have other people relying on me as well for the housing, including my sister and my partner. So yeah, I guess that is my intention and I hope you all trust in that as well. Can I ask a question, Brad? Go ahead. And this is for Ms. Noonan. Ms. Noonan, does it make sense? I mean, is there a problem with waiting until you occupy the home to then reapply for the short-term rental? I mean, I guess so. I was under the assumption that this was a process that I needed to begin right away. I do intend to occupy by the end of this month, I'm just in the process of moving my things right now. So, I mean, if anything, it would just get delayed till the next meeting, I believe, but. I mean, would it make sense hearing from some of the concerns tonight to think about withdrawing, occupying and reapplying? I think that we've gone through this process. I do hear the concerns, I do want to address them, but this has been time, I think, both on Mary and my part. And because I am occupying very, very soon, I'm in that process of moving things in. I think, hopefully, the neighbors have seen me moving things in, I've met a few of them as I've been in that process. So, I guess that is my thought that I am going, occupying, you know, this month. Andrea, can I follow up on Brooks's question then? Are you willing to agree not to rent out the property any further until you move in? I can do that. I do have two reservations in the next two days. I almost have to, I'm not sure that you can do that. Well, well, I mean, Brad, it's an enforcement issue. I mean, we, the city would have to enforce the violation, but I guess, given the neighbor's comments, it's, you know, I think Brooks's point, it sounds like your intent is to move in soon. And therefore, it seems like the hardship would be small to address the neighbor's concerns by not renting the property until you have moved in. Yeah, I'm more than, I'm more than happy to disallow any further reservations. I do have two people that were planning on coming and staying in two of the bedrooms to tomorrow. But other than that, I'm more than happy to block anything and prevent all further reservations until I'm fully occupied. And you should just know, I think you know now that that is a zoning ordinance violations that the city could pursue something against although seeking a permit, I think likely be the resolution of that. Okay, yeah, is there documentation on that? Cause I'd love to read more about that because I had no idea. If you don't have a permit, if you don't have a permit for the use, it's a violation of the zoning ordinance. Oh, okay. You can speak to Mary about it, but the city could bring an enforcement action against you. Gotcha, okay, I apologize. Yeah, I had no idea about that. Yeah. I think we've got a pretty good understanding of this and we will probably deliberate at the end of the meeting, which is not too far away. Brad, sorry to interrupt, but Rebecca and Kitty have their hands up again. Do we want to entertain additional comment or no? Okay, if it's different information or new information, sure, Kitty, somebody wants to say something. This is Rebecca Granis again. Andrea, I'd just love for us to figure out a way to connect with each other. I don't, you know, the world of internet searching, I can't get your phone number. So is there a way we can connect after this? Absolutely, is it, this is public. Is there any way I can... I could be the intermediary, Andrea. Great. Mary's got my number and my email. I give you permission to share it. You can share it with Andrea, okay, Mary? Okay, absolutely. That's all I had to say. Okay, thank you. Kitty, did you have something to add too? I just wanted to ask about, it looks like the property is fairly booked already on Airbnb, so I wanted to ask a follow-up question about how many, is the whole house booked and through when? I know the next couple of days are, but I think the neighbors would benefit from a clearer understanding of what's already committed and booked out and if it's the whole house or one or two bedrooms. I wanted to be clear on whether it's one or two bedrooms. I think the beginning of the meeting started on one bedroom and then I just heard two. So just trying to sort out what the plan is and what's allowable. Hey, Brad, is this the appropriate forum to be going through that information? That sounds like enforcement and that may be information that comes before us at some point. Well, I mean, I think if, you know, I think what Andrea said was that we could have rented for one or two days tomorrow. Is that right, Andrea? Correct, but it is not the whole place. I have access because I'm moving my things into one of the bedrooms, which is open right now and being filled with my stuff. So it's just the other two bedrooms until my sister moves in. And how long they rented for it? It's rented for a day each. Okay, okay. I think we can leave it at that right now and then I think it's, all right. It's, I think that's sort of clear. Then you guys can talk further for neighborhoods. And with that, I will close the public hearing. Okay. So that is, we have one other piece of other business where Scott will enlighten us on amendments. Brad, we do have- We do have Bill 450 North Avenue. Oh, that's right. We skipped over that. As in a, let's see. So is he, oh, hi, Bill. Hello, hey. There we go. Oh, this works, all right. Okay, I will swear you in, do you just want to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain and penalty of perjury? Yes. Okay. So this is commended for approval. Do you want to speak on what you're trying to do here? I am trying to, I guess, stay ahead of the game a little bit and maintain the right or I guess develop the right to be able to Airbnb better than my house, my residence when the time comes. And I'm sort of curious, and this might be some questions for Scott or staff as much as anybody, I guess, Mary, is how did, was this property subdivided from 452 or I'm just curious. No, I bought 450 North Ave. And then while working on it, the other house came up for sale and it shares a large driveway. So I felt like I needed to be the driveway czar. The houses don't butt up to each other. I'm just trying to read the site plan. That's for me yet. Yeah, 450 is on one side of the driveway and 452 is on the other side of the driveway. Okay. Are you asking about the residences, Brad? It's a connected building. Is that what you're looking at? Yeah. Oh, that's the building in the front that's against North Ave is 448 actually. Say, and I don't have anything to do with 448. So I live at 450 North Ave. My elderly stepfather lives next door at 452. In one of my apartments. And so that works. Okay. And parking works out on this one? There's a ton. I think it's why I bought the house in the first place. Any questions for the applicant here? It seems like a simpler one. Is there any comment you want to solicit, Brad? I don't see any hands raised, but it's often requested either. Yeah, okay. Anybody from the public who wants to speak at 450 North Avenue? So raise your hand please. It's like it's just bill, but we should ask though. Okay. It does look like there's plenty of parking there. The parking is proposed at the part of the parcel. Well, that's a literative where there used to be a barn. And I've been here long enough to have permitted that redevelopment and the barn was removed and that remains an area that's been used for parking. And it says parking for four cars or more. So that seems to be it. At some point, I think that I would probably try to get a permit to put in a garage, which I think would be sort of helpful, but that's the future. That's the future, as you say. Okay. Unless anybody on the board has any questions, nobody from the public is commenting. We're gonna close that public hearing on this. Thank you, Bill. Glad you could make it to speak. Thanks, bye. Okay. So now it's your turn, Scott, for other business. Okay, just give me a second. So before I get into the recent amendments and that won't take that long, I'll just give you a brief update on short-term rentals. So the city council acted on February 22nd to approve a short-term rental package in chapter 18, which is the city's rental registration coordinates and housing. But there's two pieces. There's another follow-up piece and the zoning code. So all the standards are to be located in chapter 18. The role for the zoning code really is just to define short-term rentals, enable it wherever you can have residential uses and point to chapter 18 for the standards. So you wouldn't see any more of these. As AJ mentioned, the mayor hasn't signed it yet. So without getting too far into the weeds, because this has been kicking around for a long while, the zoning piece of the puzzle here has expired. So that needs to be re-reviewed. It leaves pro forma, assuming what the city council approved for chapter 18 is ultimately signed and enacted. So said more directly in a different way, we're gonna be with the status quo it looks like for at least another, I don't know, two or three months probably. Even if the council approved the 22nd is enacted. If things get more complicated and the mayor doesn't sign it and it's vetoed, then it's more of a delay. But that's the quick update there. Does it become a permitted use? Is that what it is? It becomes a use by right. So it's even better than a permitted use in some respects. It's basically defined as a dwelling unit or part of one. As I say, the zoning total just point to chapter 18 for applicable standards. And it's for a single bedroom and a known rock by dwelling. What got approved by the council says you can short-term rent your dwelling unit period. The only exception is for seasonal residents. So there's some of those out by like sunset cliff and apple tree point. And I don't remember exactly offhand, but there's, I think there might be provision there too for I'll just say surplus affordable housing. So if you have like a 10 unit apartment building, you live in there, you've got your inclusionary units that you're required to have. If you have an additional affordable unit on top of that, I think that scenario is the widest problem. But that's a little bit more complicated. So does that mean you have a five bedroom house? You can rent out four bedrooms? The limit is three. And you can rent out the entire unit, right? You can decide to go to Florida for two months in the winter, Brad, and short-term rent your entire dwelling unit. You don't have to be there. You don't have to be in your primary residence. Right, it has to be the primary on our occupancy. Right. So it's the six months in a day standard. Yeah. That sounds a little challenging. So Brad, next time you go to Block Island, you know. Just rent out the house. And pay for the ferry ride. Okay. Sorry. Yeah, I guess so. So status quo for another few months, I think, is the punchline right there. But I'll keep you guys updated when something's a little bit more firm with that. Okay. Before you go on to the ordinance changes, I had another question. I think this Mary, you had emailed about the mayor's initiative and W-9s. Can you just provide a little review on that as well? Cause I wasn't aware beyond your email of that. You mean prior information on that, I just received a notice from the clerk treasurer's office that they were authorized to send this to staff for each of their boards. So for those of you who have forwarded your W-9s, they are now at the clerk treasurer's to be paid. And we sent an attendance record card since July 1st, 2021. That's all the information I had. Yeah, that definitely came out of left field. We all, as staff, we just got this random email from the clerk's office saying, hey, send these to your board members. Okay. Okay. Okay, so. Quick update on the zoning. Yeah. For against updates. So I'll do a quick screen share. I'll also say that the online CDO is fully up to date now. So if you guys like to keep paper copies on your end, just check the dates, the effective dates on each article to make sure what you've got is actually current. It's not here in the list, but I'll point out that Article 14, the form code was updated with a bunch of, I'll say miscellaneous stuff that gets way into the weeds, hence me not putting it here. That's up to date now too. So adapt to reuse. The adapt to reuse definition has been updated. And Mary correct me if I miss anything here, but basically it's been changed to be consistent with federal standards as to what adapt to reuse is. And it basically says you take a historic building and reuse it for something other than what it was originally built for. So an easy example, there is a historic factory that gets converted into a loft housing. That's a pretty classic example of adaptive reuse. So that seemed pretty neat and clean, but then we decided or we found out afterwards, wait a minute, that is implications for the adaptive reuse bonus that you still live in Article 4 under the residential standards. So we clicked out the adapt to reuse bonus and we relocated it and renamed it the historic building rehabilitation bonus under section 548. So the effect for applicants is really nil. It's just a relocation and renaming that the bonus provisions remain the same. So now the parts seem to align, which is always good. You don't like when they don't bumping down a little bit. Shoreline setback. You guys have actually seen a few of these. I think we've had what five or six tear downs and rebuilds on the shoreline the past few months. The couple of highlights here, I'll stop scrolling around. The couple of highlights here, we tweaked the front yard setback standard on waterfront properties because we had had experience where because of the irregular shoreline that was affecting front yard setback distances. And in some cases actually pulling redevelopment closer to the lake shore than the existing development was. And that ran contrary to the idea of preserving and keeping intact the lake shore. So I put an alternative minimum of 50 feet for the front yard setback. So we don't find ourselves in a position of having a greater setback forced than necessary towards the lake shore. And you guys are also familiar with the other component development over a certain size or under square feet entails creation of a low mo zone along the lake shore. And the idea there really is about water quality. It's pretty well established that a more substantially vegetated edge along water body is better for water quality than certainly hard surface or even better than mobile on. So those are the two aspects of that amendment. I have measurement, I'll just point out the highlight here is that we finally dealt with dormers. You guys have seen a couple of head scratches as to dormer additions and at what point do they affect the height versus not. So in this amendment, we finally articulated the extent to which dormers, which dormers affect roof height. So basically big ones affect the roof height measurement smaller ones don't. And then as I was showing earlier, we've got definition of dormer and a couple of visual aids there. So hopefully that clips an end to some of the head scratching we get for dormers. Act 179 that's referring to state statute. And there's a few small changes here but the most significant changes here pertain to ADUs. So we've now got 900 square feet. The state changed their standard to 900 square feet. Basically, well the ink was still drawing on ours that said 800 square feet. Or excuse me for interrupting or 30% of the gross area of the house. And I have in front of me an ADU that's proposed to be well over a thousand square feet because it's based on 30% of the gross area. So that's directly from Act 179. And the other piece here is that the configuration is no longer limited to an efficiency for one bedroom apartment. So you could have yourself a two or three bedroom ADU. And the other piece that I would point out that we, where is it now? Duplex, duplexes have been conditional uses in RL zone since the dawn of time. We've changed it to make it permitted use now, which seems to make sense because the express purpose statement of the district talks about as being intended for single families and duplexes. So you guys won't see a conditional duplex anymore. I want to assure the board though, in our project review, we have been, our staff reports have reflected these new changes to the ordinance. So we always keep current with that. If any of it looks foreign to you, please reach out to us and we can tell you on the basis for the standards that we're writing our report on. Last but not least, this last amendment makes three changes. One pertains to basic zoning permits instead of design review. That's really an implication for staff. Doesn't affect you guys much at all. We've also made a change here about dropping the permit requirement when you're just changing the use between one permitted non-residential use and another where no standards apply. For a long while, the only standards that have applied has been parking. And so parking minimums have been dropped in much of the city at this point and it looks like they might be dropped outright. So that's a small but significant tweak. And the last thing that I would point out is in the flood hazard area. You guys have seen some pretty tiny stuff in the flood hazard zone because the ordinance was written such that any development, even a signpost has to go to the DRB. So we've tweaked that to enable administrator review and in the flood zone for smaller stuff. If it's big enough to trigger DRB anyways, it'll still go to you but you won't see signposts or ticket booths at the ferry company anymore. And see, I promise that'd be quick. And so it's all up to date online in the CDO. Questions, ask me an hour later. Questions for Scott, okay. Thank you, Scott. Sure. I did look at the CDO online and it said, it's current as of a meeting day. I think that's what it said, right? I think that's all the business and at this point, we will close our meeting. I have to review board meeting. 14-415 North Avenue. I move that we accept the application and adopt staff findings. Second on that. Chase, any discussion on this one? All in favor? Opposed, unanimous on this. CP 2220 42 Marvel Avenue that we approve the application with the stipulation that the applicant provide valet parking for any of the short-term rental people that are there and adopt staff's findings and recommendations or the one change about the adverse pending on the parking. Is there a second on that? Okay, Caitlin seconds it. Discussion on this. Sorry, if she submits a letter and says that she will be a valet and therefore that then can be used against her if she doesn't act as a valet? That would be a violation of the zoning permit, I guess, but we're not involved in that. Well, we are if someone appeals it to us, but I don't think there's any way to really enforce a valet agreement. You don't know whether they are not serving that function. The reality is it will just push parking out under the street or make for more complicated arrangements with the tenants that I think, these short-term rentals should be allowed where there's proper space to accommodate them. And I voted against every one of the valet projects that we've had for Airbnb's because it just it goes too far in trying to squeeze these in places where there's not physical space to accommodate them. So I'm gonna vote against it, but I know we have agreed, we as a board have authorized it in other instances. Yeah, okay. Have there been any cases that have come before the board before that where this has happened and it's worked or it's not worked? I don't think there's come appeals. Sorry, Bright, go ahead. No, I haven't heard anything, AJ. I mean, I feel like this has come up. We've given other waivers or parking waivers. We've had parking discussions on Airbnb's. We don't really follow whether they work or they don't work. That's an enforcement issue. And there's been a couple where we've asked people to come back to us and talk about it. And this particular issue wasn't wild. The people we've brought back are here for other reasons. Like they don't have good Airbnb's, that's it. I think the other time we've had parking, I can remember a parking issue over the Rudolph end prior to them getting a permit when they had rented out their Airbnb before then. But remember how the permit exactly worked out that they had to park in the driveway so they couldn't park on the street after that. We haven't heard anything since then. So, well, let's see if this passes. Any all in favor of approving this with the valid part? Okay, so it doesn't pass that way. So, somebody else want to make a motion? So I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion that we- Recording in progress. Make a motion. What is this one? ZP 22-20, which is 42 marble have that we adopt staff's findings and conclusions and deny the application for failing to satisfy the parking requirements. Second on that. Second that. Further, second that any further discussion? Okay, all in favor of this motion? Two, three, four. Okay, opposed? Three, okay, so it passes four to three. Okay, ZP 22-50, 83 Central Avenue. Actually, I move that we ask to reopen the hearing. Is that the right thing? And ask the applicant to come back with a site plan showing parking, meeting your parking requirements off the East side street access. Once the removal of the hand-kept access is complete. I'll second that. Any discussion on this one? So, all in favor? Opposed? So we ask- Recording stopped.