So at 504, I will call the board of finance to order. And the first item on the agenda is the agenda. Is there a motion? I would move to read out the agenda. Thank you. Councilor McGee, is there a second? Second. Thank you. Councilor Barlow, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. And the motion carries unanimously. Are there any members of the public wishing to speak at public forum? Once, twice, all right. We will close the public forum and move on to our consent agenda. Do I have a motion on the consent agenda? I move to adopt the consent agenda and take the action. So is there a second? Second. Thank you, Councilor McGee. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the motion carries unanimously. And that brings us to our first deliberative item, the BED switch and save program sub-grants. And it looks like we have a couple of folks from BED who are going to talk about that. Well, hello. Good afternoon, Councilor. It's Board of Finance, Director Pringer, General Manager with Chris Burns, Director of Energy Services. We have a great news item with the switch and save program. We have the opportunity to have initially 400,000 and potentially up to 500,000 depending on the state-wide spending level. Come to Burlington for this purpose to replace less efficient water heaters and fossil fuel water heaters in income-qualified residences with more efficient heat pump water heaters. So save money, save on carbon. And it was designed in 2022 in the legislature and it actually stemmed from an energy action network working group. I had the chance to be a part of the effort back then and help me design and advance the program along with folks from efficiency Vermont, BNRC, BPURG, a bunch of regional planning organizations and others. So we're really pleased to be able to be a sub grantee of efficiency Vermont for the program. Chris and his team have been working with Champlain Housing Trust and having some conversations as well with other housing organizations on ways that we can deploy the resources quickly as possible. I think it is intended to be used in 2024. So we wanna draw down as much as we can for Burlington residents and then potentially go after additional funding that may be available. So the $500,000 limit is to account for all known available funds and some potential additional funds that we might be able to access. And we're glad to answer any questions the board has. Excellent. Any questions, comments from the board? Yes. Yes, I'm just curious. Like with the $500,000 grant, how many conversions could you do? And would you be able to identify the folks who are eligible and sort of ask them rather than just make the program available? That would be great. Yes, it's a great question. And really 300,000 initially is gonna go to the water heater change jobs. We have another 100,000 that can support electric work that needs to happen because the idea here is to make this no cost or minimal cost. So we were estimating with the 300,000 that we would have between 7,525 residences that we can switch over. And that's really the work that Chris and his team are doing with Champlain Housing Trust. It's possible we may be able to use the resources entirely working with partners and not have to wait on customers to come to us that we can practically work with area housing organizations, identify eligible residences and get the dollars deployed that way. So that's our initial thinking. And if for some reason we were under utilizing those dollars, we would look for additional avenues for outreach. But I think we're hopeful we'll be able to utilize this that way. Any other questions? Yes. I'm happy to make a motion that's right. Is there a second? So. Okay. Looks like we've lost Councilor Cain for a moment. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. And any opposed, please say nay. And the motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Item number two on the deliberative agenda is the Church Street Marketplace, the capital improvement. Some exciting things happening here. Well, Director Onoswari, why don't you give us a quick overview? Sure. So the Church Street Marketplace applied for and received a $1 million and eventually became a grant through then Senator Layton's office. We received the grant in 20, the grant actually hit the account in 2023. We then wrote and posted an RFP and engaged with an engineering firm to reevaluate a street assessment that we had already had done in 2017. Looking at wear and tear, pooling of stormwater, trip hazards, broken bricks, unevenness, frost heaves, et cetera. They gave us a full report and they also helped us or helped me prioritize some of those repairs that needed to be done. We then posted an RFP, posted one RFP that ended at the end of December. Note, do not post RFPs the holidays. Reposted it and we received one bid. It fits into our budget and it leaves us around 60,000 breathing room for any contingencies. It is Don Weston excavating. Don Weston and his team have engaged in previous contracts through DPW and I'm looking to move forward and sign that contract with them so that we can get them on the street as soon as the weather gets a little warmer and start getting some of that work done. We are being mindful of disruptions that that may have on some of the businesses on the street. What we believe it's going to look like is swaths of bricks that will be lifted, the surface be graded, fresh bricks put down. So more section work, not complete block disruption. Excellent. And I know Councillor James has been able to rejoin. Any questions or comments for Kara on this? Yes, Councillor McKay. Okay. Yes. It's exciting. Let's work forward. I was the probably the area is that we should say identified. This is covering all the improvements for. Some of the prioritized. Yeah, some were prioritized. There are some tree pits that might have to go into another batch if I can secure another grant. But really the priority was to make it more accessible. I've also had conversations with the AARP, et cetera, and we know that those trip hazards need to be addressed as well as some of the intersections don't have what is now standard granite lines for the visually impaired that have buffed on them so they know they're approaching an intersection, things of that sort. So those are in the priority list. And the appendix that was attached to the item is. It has like the phone. Yes, exactly. Is that listed in order of priority? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions? Were you ready for a motion? So moved. Great. Thank you, Councillor Chen. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Councillor McKay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the motion passes unanimously. Thank you. I have a look at that work. And now we get to have fun with DPW. Laura and Julia. Thank you. Item number three, authorization to execute the design contract for Cherry Street and that brings the reconnecting downtown project. It was a quick, low-burberry, of course we could never hear too much about this contract. Thank you. So we came to the board of bindings about a month ago to accept the raised reconnecting downtown grant, which is a $22 million grant that supports rebuilding Bank Street, Cherry Street, the two new sections of Prime Street and St. Paul Street up to our Great Street standards. This is also combined with the L.A.B. National Direct Spending Funding that we've rewarded and accepted in fall of 2023. We have been working with VTrans and FHWA to put out a request for qualifications for a design engineer to work the design work for this big project because of the scale and size of the project following the trends for camera policies. We issued a request for qualifications rather than proposals and received several statement of qualifications from three different design firms. It ultimately ended up selecting Stantec. They were involved in the previous version of this project so had a lot of background info which gave them a bit of a leg up in terms of efficiency. They also understood the schedule that we need to be to not jeopardize our federal funding and had all of the technical expertise that we needed to see, to feel confident in awarding this contract to a firm. So they are breaking out their contract to work with our different grant funding sources so that we can do all of our reporting for the various grants and also there's some waterfront tip funding supporting the Cherry Street local match. So we've worked with them to kind of structure how they're going to invoice us so that we can make sure to track everything appropriately. So their total contract amount was $2,217,249 which is a lot but did fit into our preliminary engineering budget that we had planned for. We're also asking to approve 10% contingency for any design contract amendments that may come up with. Sure. Excellent. Any questions from the board? Yes. What's the timeline for the design phase of the project? So the construction funds which means the design has to be complete and project has to be ready to go to construction for Cherry Street has to happen by June of 2026 and for Bank Street and the rest of the project by June of 2027. So we'll be sprinting towards those goals while following all of the right federal processes and the different plan development basis. Any other questions? Are we ready for a motion? Motion is required. Thank you, Councilor Barlow. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Councilor McGee. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Item 4.4, the Champlain Parkway, S-Y-24 project budget amendments and the Sultan contract amendments. Chief Engineer Baldwin and Director Spicer, who would like to kick it off? Perfect. So, Thor Baldwin is the engineer. Joel are aware of the Champlain Parkway that's been underway and actually this is going to be this coming stretch to this third season. For those of you who don't know, the initial phase of the parkway really begins at home avenue north along your side of the parkway crossing the plan out of the stairs lane and continuing on Lakeside Avenue, High Street to Kilburn Street. The final phase is the continuation of that connecting both ends from Kilburn to Main Street and then the home avenue itself to the 189 interchange. So this is our third season. We are going to be restarting project in April 15. We anticipate that this project will be complete. At least the first phase will be complete by the August of this year. So, getting back to the specific request, you should have an packet, a number of communications. One is the base communication that speaks to various technical specific details and then another subsequent memo from Director Spicer that gives more of a kind of a broader view of project and its explanation of where we're at. For this particular request, we're looking to have two things, additional budget authorizations to complete the initial phase and then additional contract authorizations for design, resident engineering and services and project management. When I say that these additional contract authorizations extend beyond, of course, this current phase, it is doing two things in this process. It's these contracts will account for design, document preparation and bid docs for the final phase and also it will include efforts to advance that product to support the product. D&K with project management, WSP with resident engineering services and CHA with construction admin, Construction admin is effectively in simple terms is the process of design engineering when they need to respond or add answer questions that are available to respond to the resident engineer and the contractor still. Those are kind of the fundamental asks. I would note specifically, there is an additional $9,000 ask in bond proceeds for non-participant costs. I think it's important council members understand we know the difference between non-participant costs and local match obligations. So non-participant costs typically in this product are soil development, managing of soils that are developed soils, which means disposal of those soils and transport of those soils, landscaping and various finishes and amenities that the state is not saying it's eligible. So we have, let's see. And also just generally a budget authorizations to account for expenses that we didn't anticipate, but that are offsetted by other revenue sources, as example, Petroleum Cleanup Fund, Water Resource and Upgrading, some of the water lines while we're doing network, those types of things. So I think that in some total explains what we're asking for today, certainly available to answer in question. So I'm noting that the mayor joined us during that explanation, he is on Zoom and I will open it up to any questions from the board. Yes, Councilor McGathey. Thank you all for your questions. I don't appreciate the additional information involved by the supplement on this. I do certainly recognize the treatment position of Steve from the partners, one of the department at Exhibitiously and realizing that we're going to have a project on this, so fit into the timeline that we had at home in particular. And so I'm prepared to support this tonight, recognizing that and recognizing that decades in the making are not here to understand the way of that in place. And I look forward to supporting efforts to actually change what was the state to join us in being committed to the water project project. Is equally important and should be prioritized by complete, especially as we consider some of the information district adding more traffic was envisioned from the first to the final. So I'm curious to find a way to get to a question. If you all have done modeling with Southern Innovation District, being comfortable with this. Yes, so the parkway as we understand it under activity that predates these types of developments had some, at least in my belief, conservative estimates in terms of traffic growth within the general community did not contemplate specific site-specific development projects like this. And so we are working very closely with the development team to understand what the consequences of their project is and whether or not it needs to be future improvements that kind of attend to that challenge. But we're working very diligently with them to understand not only just in long-term, but also more of how to make money sequence to their construction and development, how will that fit within the context of this project in general with the street network itself. So there's a lot of work to be done still. Just set up a meeting with them today to do the next round of traffic review from the master planning perspective. Before we see a development proposal, let's make sure we understand the assumptions and is there a path that a first phase or two could proceed with minor traffic adjustments while we were to finish the parkway while the RED is developed and try to bring some logic to how this all fits together understanding the constraints of the traffic itself. Lynn, yes, Councilor Barlow. I also appreciate an additional memo and I spoke with the director's sponsor today. My specific concerns were when we saw street capital, there's not street capital for this. I would love to see the director's sponsor. Let me know if there's this contingency that you may want to add to this. And also I'd asked about the 900,000 capital bond of our students and I understand the balance of it. This is money that was allocated for local match, correct? Generally, yes, not project specific, but generally. And so it's consistent with the way the bond proceeds were envisioned. So those are my concerns and I just wanted to try to get them out there for anybody who haven't listened to also understand. So I have received a couple of questions. So thank you for that. I don't have any additional questions but I appreciate you giving me that time today. I thank you for that. And I think one of the pieces that maybe we should give light to in the sense of things we've discussed that I think are important for the public to understand is that this funding today is for completing the initial construction contract. And that is I put in the supplemental memos that we'll be looking for over $2 million of additional capital dollars to complete the final construction contract. And that is work that we'll need to do with FY 25 and 26 coordination with Ash with partners on the phone so that when we bring the final construction contract for your review that we can demonstrate how that local match is going to be paid. So I also think it's important to understand that when we're packaging this final design anticipate final design will be potentially done either this month or next month, ready for bid. So you could potentially see more in May, June but this year itself are tempted for this May, June. Any other questions? We ready for a motion? Yeah, I have a quick question. Next. And it is included to the final construction contract and it seems Chappan just mentioned a $2 million and are those $2 million so much to the federal government or what are those? Yes, those are the math fun to be able to draw down the state and federal dollars. The second phase is going to be around $37 million and the city overall is only having contribute around 8% of the total project expenses which is quite a good deal compared to most normal state federal projects. And I know thank you and I think also another question as to why the federal government did not accept basically clearing up the road and we understand that there was some, the soil was contaminated, right? And there are some firms that you as part of your memos that I could not understand a lot as to why the federal government could not take care of those as well. Like, such as... I think I can pause for a second. They're part that they have decided that the states decided they are not assuming a soil liability in the future. So that's kind of where we landed on that. It's consistent across various projects that we have worked with the state and federal government on similarly the roundabout even though that was a safety project where 100% of the construction was covered by state and federal partners. The non-participating expenses were still soil management that the city was on the hook to cover. For better or worse, Vermont has more stringent regulations than most states in the country. And I think part of the Fed's concern is that they don't want to have to pay the extra premium of all the regulation in the state of Vermont. So for better or worse, it is typical for municipalities to cover this cost. I mean, I think we will not be here, but really congratulations and thank you for everything that you have done for this collective. For, yeah, it will be a great thing for the city. Thank you. Thanks, Miro. Yeah. Yes, I have a comment on it. It's, there's no other discussion we'll make about. I would recommend that we, or I would move to take the action on the next step, I recommend that we move to the next step. Excellent. Is there a second? If you can come up. Second. Is there any further conversation? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, DPW. Thank you. Now to continue with DPW about move to water. Let's discuss accepting some combined sewer outflow abatement, ARPA grant funds. That's a lot of words. Director Hoyer, could you please give us a quick overview? Sure. While I certainly have maintained that not enough ARPA funds are coming towards water resources, these two items are examples of benefiting state ARPA dollars. And so as I describe in my menu, in memo, we did a long-term control plan as part of that long-term control plan. We identified a number of additional combined sewer outflow mitigation things that we need to do in the next coming decades. Unfortunately, the state did have some money that they allocated across all of the CSO communities. We were able to secure almost $3.3 million that will go towards our combined sewer outflow projects right now, our highest priority project that we are working to advance is a substantially sized tank underneath Callaghan Park, which would provide a storage area for the combined sewer outflows that currently go to the Pine Barge Canal and to the lake, which is sort of our highest priority, both from a frequency standpoint, a volume standpoint, and also that it's going directly to the lake. Not that the other ones don't count. They do go to the river and the river goes to the lake, but they are much further away. They are much more infrequent in the lower volume. This money is flexible if, for some reason, things stall with the tank. It is becoming difficult to try to figure out exactly what sized tank with some of the other moving parts that are happening in the sewer shed and with some of the hydraulic challenges that are in the pipe network on Pine Street. We do have other options. We have other things we can build. But right now, we're keeping our fingers crossed that this money could be married with some of the remaining 2018 Clean Water Resiliency Bond money to perform the project. Or possibly, if we need a little extra money, we are considering a November 2024 bond and try to augment those funds. Great. Questions from the board? Thank you, Megan. Yes. I don't have a question, but just simply that these are on the deliberative agenda for this evening.  That tends to be a pretty good crowd, please. Sorry, I'm going to go around here. If there are counselors who feel in the majority field, I think it's something that's going to change. But in the meantime, I would make a motion as recommended. So is there a second? Good question. Any discussion or questions? Yes. My own discussion. I know it's unusual to have me weigh in on discussion. It's just to say thank you for that, President Paul. I will be staying for the item immediately before it. I have made sure staff will not be in attendance so they can deal with other matters. So I am happy to stay on for the five or 10 minutes after the parkway. If there's any interest in discussing this session. If there is nothing else, we have a first and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. He opposed. Anyone who doesn't want money? OK. And item passed unanimously. Excellent. Thank you very much. And let's talk about ARPA grant phones number two, please. So as some of you may know, we are a MS4 community, a separate storm sewer system permit. We give us a whole bunch of extra things that we have to do compared to a lot of other Vermont communities. And one of those things, as you all are familiar, the lake is compared due to phosphorus. We, through our integrated water quality plan, our plan is to tackle Burlington's full obligation through the implementation of tertiary treatment and additional level of treatment at wastewater treatment plant. However, there is additional money out there to get more phosphorus. And why would we want to do that, particularly in watersheds that drain directly to public beaches? And so the high priority project that we've identified for this funding would be the retrofit of an old dilapidated storm water pond in the Southland neighborhood, and ideally turning that into a gravel wetland. Gravel wetlands have the highest phosphorus removal performance of any stormwater treatment practice because that is directly feeding planchers or oakland beach. That's our highest priority. As with the other grant, we have a number of other backup projects. This money is flexible enough because of the less of a nexus, but there is a nexus with doing buy and store overflow projects and phosphorus reduction. So we have other things we can also do with this money showed that Southland project. A, not spending all of the money. We have some cost estimates in the memo, but we all know the world of cost estimates is all over the place. So it's possible we might draw down more of it than I did to fight it. But should we do that, we have some other projects that we can tackle as funds. So thank you, State, for thinking of water resources when handing out these funding packets. Excellent. Thank you. Any questions from the board? We're meeting the match. Yeah, there is a 20% match, but this is a unique opportunity in which we're able to leverage money that we have pulled down, that we're leveraging from private entities. So the project that you all approved, which was a P3, a public-private partnership with Palmer Lowe's, HT, to build a gravel well end, yeah, gravel well ends, at the Christopper shopping mall. That money and all of the money that the private folks are spending on that counts as our leverage for this project, that we don't even have to put in additional city dollars, which is even really awesome. Love it. Are we ready for a motion or any questions? Yes, Councilor Gage. Very happy to make a motion. Excellent. Is there a second? Second. Second from President Paul. Last call. Chapin, anything to add? A few words, then. Excellent. All those in favor, please say aye. He opposed. And the motion classes unanimously. And that brings us to adjournment. And seeing no further business, we will adjourn at 5.38, leaving us with a few minutes before City Council. In a rare move, we have until 6.15. But don't be late. But we'll see you upstairs in time, Toys.  Thank you. Because I'll get you through. Thank you. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead.


Let's call to order the Tuesday, December 6th, 2022 development review board meeting. I'm Adrian LaRosa, I'm the chair of this meeting. We will proceed through the items on our agenda in the order they're listed generally, although I have a question about the sketch plan item, which I'm going to get to in a second. We're taking testimony on some items and we'll be doing it here over Zoom. As to the agenda itself, I noticed that 453 Pine Street sketch plan was before our public hearing. My question is, don't we normally do sketch plan after the public hearing? Yeah, normally, normally we do, yeah. Any reason this time to do it before? I don't have an objection with it. It seems relatively, we've already seen the project, but I'm just curious. I'll defer to Mary. Mary, I didn't know who put the agenda together, sorry. I did not assemble the agenda and your correct sketch plan is usually taken up last. You have seen a similar project by this applicant, we're in a different location for this review. There's the addition of two other structures on the site. I don't have any problem doing it that way, different than normal. No, then we will go through our agenda that way. I just lost on a screen, there it goes. So Scott, there's a bunch of communications that came, there's several communications that came in, I think relatively recently, in regards to some of these applications, have they all been posted? Is there anything that hasn't been posted? Everything is online to the best of my knowledge. Okay, we don't have any additional ones. Minutes from the last meeting, no one made any changes to those, so we'll consider those approved and I'll sign them. Go to our agenda. The first item on our agenda is a consent item, ZPS 22-52, 328 North Avenue, Nova Enterprises, Joe Realty LC, and David Semendinger. I'm accused on this one. Okay, replace existing non-conforming freestanding sign with new non-conforming freestanding sign. Is the applicant here? I don't see Dave in the attendees. If you're a representative for this project, raise your hand please. Okay. No hands going up. So your call if you want to act on it or defer until later. Well, it was on our consent agenda item. What does the board think? Seems pretty clear that replacing one non-conforming sign with one that matches generally. Do we want to just approve it and move on or wait? Wait, because I have a question about it. Okay. So I'll consider that a motion to defer it till later in our meeting tonight or possibly later date. Second. All those in favor? All of us? Okay. So that brings us to sketch plan items, ZSP-22-10, 453 Pine Street. Sketch plan review for the construction of 26,000 square foot bowling alley, 4,000 square foot building, 20,000 square foot Nordic inspired bath house. AJ, I'm recused from this item. Yes, Jeff, thank you. I see we have the applicants and their team. Can I get all those people who want to testify on this item to raise their right hand? Do you square them in for sketch plan? No, I don't need to be. Oh, you don't square them in for sketch plan? Okay. Well, then put your right hand down. In that case then, on the applicant side, who wants to walk us through the project? Is Kelly DeRosh the only one that's currently unmuted? I saw Dave Roy here as well. I see Jovial with her hand up. Yep, so it would be Jovial King, Michael Mapes, Peter, I'm probably going to butcher his last name, Azarak, Dan Voisen, Dory Barton, Cynthia Noff, David Roy, Alex Cruthers, Larry Williams, Greg Gossens, and Steve Crudell. Do all those people intend to speak tonight? Potentially. Potentially. And we're going to have Jovial start. Okay. Is that my moment? Can you hear me? I think that would be your moment. Okay, great. And you can't see me, but it's okay. Can you see me? No, we don't have applicants on video. Okay, got it. The plans to make it easy. Yes, great. Scott, can you actually pull up the lot map that we sent via email? Oh, that one. Okay. Yeah. I think it's the same one conservation board saw last night and that's how it was posted. Yeah. Yeah, it's going to take me a moment to dig out. Okay, that's fine. I can start so we don't waste any time. So my name is Jovial King. I'm a long-term resident of Burlington. I live in the North End. And thank you for taking the time tonight to hear about our project. Like one of you had said, you have heard about this project earlier in a previous location for a quick overview for folks that aren't familiar that are calling in. The location is 453 Pine Street in downtown Burlington. It is a brownfield. It is adjacent to the Superfund site around the Barge Canal. This project has been allocated $6 million of state and federal funding for the remediation of this brownfield. And so we are deep in the study with the team of engineers, the EPA, and the state reviewing information about the site in order to make a plan for the remediation process. We're working closely with the mayor's office in a, you know, for the larger plan of this, you know, looking at this whole area, because the city is the landholder, you know, abutting this property. And there's a significant amount of open space surrounding the property. So if we can get that map up, it'll be a little bit clear, but it's probably, but I can kind of verbally talk through it, but there's 453 Pine and then 501 Pine is right to the south of our development project. So we're planning on gifting that land along with three or four additional acres that will then create an access point for the residents of Burlington to access a larger parcel of property that the city owns, including that whole barge canal area. So that's not kind of the topic of tonight, but just for some larger context on the property. So if you can't find it, that's fine. And we can just go. I found it jovial, but it's opening another window and it's not sharing. So I'm working on it. No worries. So, yeah, if I can just pause before we get into the building structures. No, we can get into the building structures. Okay, just jump right in. So there's three, the project consists of three buildings. So one is the Nordic-inspired bath house. The second is a boutique bowling alley and the third is a small commercial building. So the Nordic bath house is gonna consist of sauna, steam rooms, hot pools, cold plunges, social and relaxation areas, a cafe and a lot of outdoor gardens and outdoor spaces. The majority of the facilities are actually outside of the building. That's one thing we wanted to clarify in terms of use for in terms of parking needs, et cetera. The bowling alley will be long form and duck pin bowling with a cafe and a beverage program. And it will be a great family destination and great fun for all ages. The commercial building is gonna be a small space, kind of close to the bowling alley that will be used as a rental space for office and a small retail. In terms of our schedule and timeline, we're planning to go for our zoning permits in March, our building permits in August and we're planning on breaking ground if that all goes well and starting the remediation and construction in September. So that is my brief overview. You can probably abandon that lot map and put up the other materials we need to look at. So happy to answer questions or hand it right over to Kelly, the architect on the bathhouse side of the project. If you can't get up that parcel map, that's okay. You can just pull up the submitted plans. Start with a second. I don't know what's going on with the share screen here. Do you have it available if I promote you to panelists to share? Not easily since I'm at home. I have it right here. How do you? All right, I'll promote you to panelists, Jovial. Let me just take a second. Let me just make sure that I actually do. There's so many files before you start sharing to the whole world here. Okay, that's not it. Do we just had it up the plans? Yeah. I'm actually, I don't, I can find it, but it's not right where I thought it was. I have it up. Let's see if I can share it. Great. Okay. My name is Kelly DeRosh. I'm with Women's Landfare Architects and we're working on the Silt Botanica Bath House. The rest of our team includes Gossin's Bachman Architects. They're working on Backside Bowl and the One Story Commercial Building. So they will also pipe in, but I thought I'd start with kind of introduction to kind of the site plan and how it's laid out. So the main entrance to this facility would be the existing Maltex Drive. During the Champlain Parkway work, this drive is going to get realigned with Howard Street. There's also a proposed bus shelter at that. So to the right is Planned North. There's going to be, currently there is a bus stop at that corner, but there will be a bus shelter and also a shared use path that goes along with those, the Champlain Parkway plans along Pine Street. Once you access through the Maltex Drive, you can either go to the back of the Maltex Building, which is currently metered parking at the moment, until the left is the majority of the parking. We do have a small access point and parking to the south, which is the left of the bath house that is for Silt Service Court and for staff parking. So this will be a side yard parking and we will make sure it's screened and signed well so that people know it's not a main entrance to the site. Between the two buildings, we are proposing kind of a pedestrian plaza and Greg's gonna, Gossens will talk about that in a moment. Currently, total parking that we are proposing is 107 spaces, but within the staff report, you might have seen that we cap out at 88. Part of something we'd like to discuss tonight is that a majority of the bath house programming is really outdoors. The building is, there are functions within the buildings, but a lot of it is supporting the outdoor space. So we just wanna make sure that we can accommodate the occupancy that is planned for this building. Currently, their business plan is 450 occupants at a time. And speaking briefly to Backside Bowl, 50% of the building footprint is allowed to be in accessory use as well. And bowling alleys these days aren't just bowling, they provide food and beverage, private rooms and arcade spaces. So again, we just wanna make sure we have adequate parking to meet the needs of these buildings and their business models. You'll see the dashed blue lines show the 50 foot state wetland wuffer and then there's 100 foot city conservation zone that is the furthest dashed line within. Currently, we're proposing a few items within this zone, but they are regulated uses, which require DRB approval. We are planning out these will be a low impact. Some of these are, you can see partially some of the parking is there, some store monitor treatment areas and I will let civil and environmental engineers jump in later if there are questions regarding some of these spaces. We've had Dory Barton of Airwood Environmental conduct a wetlands delineation and review of the site. She recognized that the water quality to the wetland and buffer have no other identified significance, function and value. Dory's reviewed the proposed project and as proposed it will have no adverse impact on the wetland resources. The project components that occur within the 50 to 100 foot buffer area are disturbed landscape areas that are dominated right now by non-native invasive species. And this was all included in a natural resources protection overly district summary that should have been part of your packet. So that's one item we'd also like to discuss tonight. Greg, do you wanna jump in about the pedestrian plaza? Sure. So when we were designing the project and making silt in the backside bowl create as much energy as possible fronting on the pine street and pine street has energy, which is fantastic. We came up with the concept of doing a significant pedestrian plaza reaching out the pine street, going along between the two buildings and then engaging into the parking behind and putting our building entries off of that significant pedestrian plaza. We see it as a four season plaza. We're in the midst of designing it. We're not very far along with the design but as a concept, we're definitely seen as a place for art, a place for gathering. We do wanna have it so that accommodate sculpture and outdoor lighting. So basically in the winter is just as alive as it is in the summer. For the backside bowl, the pine street elevation is predominantly a mural wall and a few places for sculpture punctuated with windows going into the bowling alley and anybody who's ever been to a bowling alley. Bowling alleys usually don't have a lot of windows but so we have to carefully place them all but nevertheless we do have some significant glass at one area which engages pine street really nicely. Another is kind of a water feature collecting water off the roof and making it into a kind of a water feature sculpture and then taking that mural wall and wrapping it into this joining plaza between the two buildings with all of our entries off of it. To add to that, you'll probably have seen within the packet that the bath house has kind of an earthen berm entry to it which is also off of this pedestrian plaza. Part of it is to create this sense of mystery and it's part of the experience. We also plan that and again, the landscape has not yet been designed but that earthen berm we would like to see kind of as an engaged area for public to use whether it has some seating benches coming off of it definitely will have growth and flowers on it as well. So again, to kind of reinforce the fact that both of these buildings are trying to create kind of an experience and this kind of gateway into the project with this pedestrian plaza. Yeah, we're fully intended to be like I said, a four-season exciting space reaching out the Pine Street. You see back on that? I guess I was going to ask at some point and I'll ask now maybe later in your presentation. I understand the intention for the mystery of the entrance into the silk bath house but the Pine Street presentation, I guess of the building is low key would be an understatement. And maybe you'll do more with the berm and there's things like that that are on the silk building is what I was talking about now. You're on the bath, you're on the bowling alley there. The east elevation of the silk bath house. I don't know what the lower material was intended to be but it's really sort of standoffish it seems. We haven't gotten into materials yet. Just like the bowling alley, part of the challenge is that we have the locker rooms they're all at that first floor because that's kind of right off the lobby your first experience. On the second floor, it's all massage rooms. We still plan right now it is very much in that massing stage. Okay, those questions. We plan to get more into detailing. Right, so.  I understand the plaza, I'm very familiar with the area. I know the value of the plaza on like the Daedalus side. I get all that. But the front side of these buildings as they're presented, I don't think is where it needs to be. I think they need to be more activated and I would strongly recommend doing that. Can you, and maybe the architects understand exactly what you mean, but what do you... Yeah, when I look at this, I look like I'm looking at the rear of the building from the public street on Pine Street. And I think that conflicts with the development review ordinance guidance that the building be oriented so that the natural entrance way front is towards Pine Street. And that's the intent and language of the ordinance. And I don't think this is there. But I believe that the reason for that is really to engage pedestrians. And I'm giving you my feedback that I don't think this does. Okay. And I agree with that as well. There's lots of like on this project, but I think that so far is not there. And that's the point of sketch plan. Yeah, I don't want to look like the back of the building is facing Pine Street. You know, when we orient a building so that it's inviting plaza is to the parking lot, we continue to double down on our desire to create driving-friendly environments as opposed to walking-friendly environments, which is antithetical to what we're trying to do on Pine Street. I think the project has a lot to like and it's reusing a space that has been sorely lacking for redevelopment. But I think on this, we want to see of our vision when we come back to us. So in speaking, this is Kelly, in speaking to the bathhouse portion, do you still understand, even if we reoriented kind of the entry point, do you understand that we're trying to create kind of an experience that's not really necessarily supposed to be kind of a storefront? Yes. Okay. And it may be just the entrance to the pedestrian plaza, which you're speaking so highly of has no presence itself. And maybe the entrance to pedestrian plaza is what needs to be seen more inviting. There's other ways to do it, not telling you to change your program, but the presentation of the building itself would seem disappointing on Pine Street. Okay, that's not it. Thank you. Also, could you talk a little bit more about the service court between the ball and the commercial building? What is that? This is Larry Williams. I could speak a little to that, but Scott, can you take us back there? Which one? Do you want to see? The space between the backside bowl and the commercial building. So the site plan here? That works. So just for a little bit of context or background, we started out on this site with just the intent of developing the backside bowl building. And then we started looking at that space, which is at the newly created corner of Howard Street, and maybe you'd call it Howard Street Extension or the Multicentry and Pine Street. And we felt that that corner was, it was important to anchor that with another building. And that's why we proposed the, that's smaller commercial building to really, with the intent of anchoring the corner, not to mention the fact that it's a great location. For a commercial building. But we also wanted to create, it was essentially a back of house for the food service component of the backside bowl. And the sort of most obvious location for that was on that Northern facade. And so we were trying to create an entry to the, primarily to the backside bowl building, which would give us access for food deliveries and also get an area that we would or could screen from Pine Street. So it's really kind of the optimal location to service what would be a not insignificant food service function for the backside bowl. And the commercial building benefits it to benefits from it to some degree, but probably will not utilize it even close to the same degree as backside, backside bowl. Greg Gossens, it picks up the cadence of Pine Street too. So that's not a monolithic wall on Pine Street. It's a cadence of three buildings. Hey Larry, can I ask you a question about the commercial there? Pardon? The commercial on the sketch plan. It's looks nice, big, large windows. Obviously some sort of industrial design. There's in front of it, I guess tables, bike parking, I'm not sure. Is it office? Because I think at this point it's a speculative building, but I think the most likely use is more likely to be retail. Yeah, okay. And it's set up as really two spaces, both fronting Pine Street. And I assume, I think Jovial spoke to this while we have that plan up. There's a shared use path running on Pine Street that's in your plans. That's, I'll be generous sort of there now. Is that getting rebuilt by the city as part of the Pine Street improvements or would that be something that you'd have to do? Yeah, that's part of the connector construction. Okay. Which will line up really well timing wise with our construction at this point. In theory. In theory, exactly. And we've met with DPW to try and coordinate that within our landscape design. We don't want it to kind of feel like this delineation between the two. We would really like it to feel integrated to the project. And AJ, you'll note that there's actually quite a bit of a space between the West side of that multi-use path and the buildings. And that's because the city has a, I think a wastewater or form water easement in that area. But we do intend to utilize that area for really engaging with Pine Street. And that's where not only landscaping but hard-scaped areas and some form of art, whatever you want to call it, walk or amenity. And that's going to be a pretty interesting area. Great. I guess, Kelly, do you want to take us back through? I mean, I guess we should probably talk about traffic a little bit. You got somebody here to chat about that? We don't have a traffic study completed at this time. We've got Roger Dickinson at Trudell. He's working on it and actually hopes to have it done by tomorrow. Okay. We, right now the Champlain Parkway plans only plan for one in and one out at the mall text drive. We have asked Roger to look at what, if there would be a benefit to having one in and two exit lanes out, one to the right, one to the left. So that's going to be within his... Are you talking about right across from Howard Street? Yes, yep. But yes, at this time, I don't have any numbers or and Roger's not on the call. Okay. I mean, obviously that's something we'll have to think about. Yep. Where do you want to take us next? If you guys, I don't know if you want us to walk through the building elevations or if you want to discuss some of the items within the staff report which are the parking. I know we discussed the entries a little bit. I think we'd also like to get your thoughts on the 100 foot kind of wetland conservation zone and those regulated uses. And we've got some consultants here too that can help speak to that if you have any questions. So you said parking, wetland. I have a couple of questions about just overall use on the site. It's curious. I noticed there's an event space and it's a space and I would like to know if there's plans for use of those or what those are. I don't know, what does the board want to talk about next? Anybody in particular? I thought the outside uses would be helpful. Obviously, I think the silk bath house seems like that's going to be quiet zones but there's also implication. I think there was some spaces connected to the backside bowl that sounded like there could be outside activities that maybe have some map amplification. Yeah, let's talk about that. What if the applicant doesn't mind? Tell us what besides the bowling and the large bath house, what other activities are contemplated on the site? I'll just speak to the bowling. I mean, to the bath house and there isn't any, the event space for ours is a private rental space. So if you wanted to go with five friends for a baby shower or something, you'd rent that space. So we aren't planning on doing any large events.  Not trying to be large. Yeah, so you're talking about the space on the left-hand side, that little building, is that what you're talking about? Yeah, so downstairs, there'll be a space for 10 people. And yes, there'll be a private pool in that area. And then upstairs, there'll be a space for two people. So yeah, so that's, it's pretty straightforward. It shouldn't produce any more noise than any of the other spaces. And the majority of the program outdoor space in the bath house, actually all of it is really meant to be a quiet zone. There are saunas within the landscape, hot pools, cold plunges, some walking paths and relaxation zones. I mean, just because we're critical of a lot of things, it looks like a wonderful plan. It looks like a wonderful thing to have on Pine Street. So. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I think it uses, as I said, I think there's really a lot to like. I want to give you as direct feedback as possible. I think it uses a space that's been sitting dormant in a very good way. And I think it'll bring a lot of activity to something that's been sitting there polluted for what, 50 years? Yeah, or longer. 50 years? Yeah. And then AJ, I can, you know, speaking for the backside bowl, you know, if you were looking at a floor plan on the first floor, you'd see as you come in, you know, the entry is again, intended to take the benefit of that alleyway, but you come in and immediately to your left is kind of the more food and drink elements of the bowling alley. And that area would be open to that patio in the rear of the building. And that patio, you know, we haven't fully programmed it yet, but, you know, you might have some cornhole there. You might have some bocce. You probably have some outdoor seating. So, you know, it is an activated area. It's an area that you could mix, you know, going in and out of the building from, you know, it's bar slash activity.  The whole, you know, the whole use is, I would say family-friendly, probably, you know, more families downstairs where the bowling is and maybe a little more social and adult-oriented upstairs, but it's a bar restaurant bowling alley. So there will be noise, but I mean, I don't think it's, I mean, it's not a concert venue. It's a food and beverage and bowling venue. You're not having outside bands in the outside space. Tough to call outside.  I can see us from time to time and asking for, you know, use permits to do some special event in that alley, but it's not a part of our business plan. Cool. Yeah, there's not really like an outdoor patio space facing pine that would be conducive to that. It would all be, if anything, back there, which is a bit helpful. So on the parking issue, we have some limited ability to waive the maximum parking requirements. Mary, you can correct me if I'm wrong on that. I think it needs a justification from the applicant. Can I, A.J.? Yeah, yeah, by all means. Reiterate. I mean, I think Kelly spoke to this. I mean, the reality is that the maximum, the parking maximums are calculated as a ratio based on the square footage of the primary use of building area. And so, you know, the case we're making is that, you know, with respect to the bath house, really the majority of uses are outside. I mean, they do create a traffic impact, but they don't get reflected in the calculation because they're outside versus part of the square footage of. Okay, I see what you're saying. Yeah. And the same thing with the bowling. The bowling alley, the parking demand is calculated based on the number of lanes. But, I mean, I don't know how old the ordinance is, but, you know, these days, you know, the accessory uses are as much a driver of parking needs as the bowling alleys. And so we're simply saying the fact that today's bowling alley has a higher percentage of kind of quote unquote accessory use in terms of bar and food service, that that, you know, we should be able to reflect that in the parking calculation. And that's all in addition to saying, even at 107 spaces for these two uses plus the commercial building, you know, we feel like we're seriously under parked even at 107, but we take some comfort from the fact that we're on Pine Street. There's a huge pedestrian element there. We're going to have the full complement of bike parking. We have the bus stop and the bus station right in front of the building. And we also have the ability and essentially consent from Rick Davis who owns the Maltex building next door. He has turned that lot into a meter block. So we're going to be able to, I mean, if we didn't have that, I'm not sure, you know, it would make sense to go forward with either of these projects because the parking we have onsite truly is not enough if it was standalone. Until Larry's comment, we also included a small turning area for drop off zone for rideshare as well. And so Larry, just to follow up, the Maltex lot is basically metered and available after hours for the Maltex use, right? Yeah, during non, which actually works. Which corresponds well to what a bowling alley is generally going to be used for. That's true. Rick, I'm sure he will reserve spaces for his tenants during business hours. Well, that's helpful because, you know, it's sort of shared parking, at least meets the intent of it. Leo, you unmuted yourself. Yes, sorry, I was thinking about usage for the sauna. Of course, I would expect it to be used more in the winter, but then in the winter also, maybe the patrons aren't going outside as much and just wondering whether with parking, did you consider, I guess, indoor usage only during the winter? Yeah, so surprisingly, these facilities are busiest in the summer. When we've studied, we always thought winter would be busier because of the need for more heat in such a cold climate. But that's really when the tourists are around, people are kind of out and about looking for things to do. So just Vermont is busier in the summer and then obviously during ski season. So it's really year-round use. And the Nordic-inspired part of the bathhouse is that all the facilities are outside and you really are in the elements. That is the, or is 57 Nordic spas in Quebec now. And I would say about 90% of them, the facilities are all outside like this. So it's really is actually part of the experience. And it's actually more efficient to be outside than to have to deal with the heating and cooling and all the water inside the building. So it actually works out well, but it's a little unusual for what you would expect. Sorry, I was getting water. Could you repeat that? Are you kidding? Funny guy, funny guy. Is Dory here? Who? Dory? Barton? Sorry, yes, I had that muted. I had to fight. Yes, I am here, AJ. I would love just briefly on the wetlands just to run us through the theory on that as I could see where that would be something we'd wanna focus on later. Sure, so we have been involved with this site for probably 20 plus years in terms of the wetland delineation, updating the wetlands and just kind of general familiarity from being on site so much. We went out this last summer and updated the wetland delineation, brought Tina Heath out recently to approve the delineation. And to walk through the project with her. The project, as currently proposed, will not trigger state wetland permit for any impacts in wetland proper or within that 50 foot buffer that the state regulates.  Yeah, yeah. But it's my understanding that we just haven't updated this plan to remove that impact. So the intention right now is to not trigger a state wetlands permit. So Tina's very excited about that, as you can imagine. We've discussed with her the city's additional 50 foot buffer as relates to kind of what we think is the most significant and probably function value of that area, which is, given the disturbed nature of the site and the infestation of invasive species, it's pretty much probably limited to water quality. And so what we wanna see as relates to protection of the wetland proper is at a minimum, no decrease in water quality headed towards the wetland. But ultimately, if the project can result in improved water quality, that would be a bonus. As you can imagine to this significantly impacted wetland area. And so it's our understanding from the project engineers that the stormwater design and the corrective action plan will meet the primary goal of no diminishment of water quality headed to the wetland. And it's expected that it would improve water quality. So Tina's very excited about that. At our site visit, she was interested in seeing us enhance the state protected buffer. So that's that zero to 50 feet, which is my understanding that we can accommodate in terms of invasive species management and enhancement plantings. And so essentially what the goal is, is to improve the quality of that zero to 50 foot area which is also impacted by invasive species right now and disturbance. But so the benefit that we're seeing from the project and the commitment so far is to improve that to an actual fine functioning buffer as relates to wildlife, as relates to water quality and other significant functions and values of the wetland. And that the encroachments that are proposed within that 50 to 100 feet are offset by that enhancement through the conservation of the zero to 50. And so we've started to, I put together a summary and what I believe is in your packet and we'll be generating a full report once the design plans are finalized. I've had some back and forth with some topics. So we haven't prepared that final report yet. Okay, okay, thanks. I was happy to hear that the state seems in favor of it. And I was gonna ask about the event space and the buffers. So that solves that, that's great. Anybody else on the board have any particular feedback? I have a question. I don't know if this is really part of the project or not. There's a very west of this project that is somehow gonna become city property. Is that everything to do with this project? And my other question is really what's the access from Pine Street to that park? Is that in this project or is that in the one south of here? Yeah, that is part of this project. And I don't know if we can get that, try that for that map again. That map? Boy, I don't know. I can give it a shot, Jovial. Okay, so I'll give you five seconds to pull it off.  But Jovial, this is, I think, you know, I think you just arrived and I think we can start again. So Brad, there is 501 Pine Street, which is just to the south of this site, which is 453. And the intent is that as a part of this overall project, that that 501 Pine Street would be dedicated to the city. And then that would connect to the city old land that's directly west of the 453 site. And then there are three parcels of land to the west of the city right away that is also owned by the current landowner. And the intent is that those parcels would also get dedicated to the city as a part of this overall project.  And then the parcels that you see to the west of the city parcel, all becoming dedicated and available to some kind of public conservation or park use that I think Jovial has been actually spending a lot of time with the city and the parks department on sort of envisioning how that happens and actually what happens there. So it is, you know, in a related way part of the project. Yeah, and you can see the proposed park in blue there. That's, and really we're calling it a conservation area not a park, but that is the area that will become open space for the citizens of Burlington. AJ, I have a question for Mary, actually. Mary, what's the impact of the pending zoning regulation for this area that you looked at before? Well, I began writing this report with the draft zoning amendment next to me. It became too complicated to sort through and it has not been adopted. So I wrote my staff reports strictly on the applicable regulations right now and what that zoning amendment looks like hasn't gelled yet. So I can't respond. Okay. That's one being discussed now at NPAs and other things, right? That's correct. Thank you. All right. Well, we've spent a good Lee amount of time on this and I think we've given them some good feedback in a sketch plan. So unless anybody on the board has anything really compelling to add, I move that we close the sketch plan and move on to the rest of our agenda item. Good luck with the project. All right. Thank you very much for your feedback. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So next item, public hearing ZAP-22-5 170 Park Street or not, I'm gonna say your name wrong. So I'm gonna leave it there. Appeal of zoning application denial ZP 22-505 to install gravel extension to existing driveway and rear parking lot. This is a Scott Gustin project. So first, all those in favor, not sorry, not all those in favor, all those who wanna give testimony on this item, please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? I do. Okay. Great. Thank you. So this is an appeal of a denial, which I think traditionally we have asked the city to go first and explain the denial and the basis for it. So Scott, if you will. Sure. So I just shared screen with the site plan that was denied here. That's what we're talking about. So as far as appeals are concerned, this one's actually pretty straightforward and amounted to excessive block coverage or residential district. So the quick backstory is early in September, a bunch of gravel was deposited in the backyard of the subject property. We received a complaint about it from a neighbor, code enforcement staff went out and verified it was there, notified the owner that a permit was needed, hadn't been obtained. So the owner pretty quickly applied for a permit for it. This is in a residential district, it's median density. The existing site conditions before the gravel was installed was pretty close to the maximum block coverage, permissible. And the coverage that was installed, the additional coverage due to the gravel put it well over the block coverage limit. So we went through a few iterations of the site plan. Ultimately, it continued to be above block coverage and the application was denied. As I said, at the outset, site plan you'll hear right now is the site plan that was denied. The owner appealed that within the appeal period. The appeal amounted to another site plan. With less gravel, it complies with the block coverage limitation and setbacks. But the intended parking or the parking that's intended to be created by it doesn't actually work in terms of circulation. So it sort of traded one problem for another. On the one hand, I sort of feel like, well, if the parking doesn't work, it's the owner's problem. But on the other hand, the zoning code actually has standards, dimensional standards for parking and circulation. I did reach out to public works engineering staff to get their take on it. I don't think you really need an engineer, but they concur that that inside third parking spot can't be accessed with vehicles in the other two spots. So in short, the appeal site plan actually brings it under the coverage limit, but it doesn't actually function in terms of parking. I'd also point out that this site plan, this site plan and the appeal site plan doesn't show the substantial strip of gravel that's actually onsite along, I think it's the northern property boundary. So I think in actuality, block coverage is gonna continue to be a problem. So that's the longest story short. So I wanna make sure I understand this. Can you share your screen on the appeal, the revised site plan that came under block coverage but parking didn't work? Sure. I think I understand it, but just... So it's the one that's entitled appeal site plan. Yep. And the spot that we say is not accessible is... This one closest to the house, yep. This is for the denial was not parking and circulation, it was block coverage. Correct. Okay. Right, so as I said, we're trading one problem for another, in this case. True. You have an appeal of denial based on one thing and something different trips it now. Okay. And that's right to meet a parking requirement by doing this. Right. There's no difference in the end result for parking spaces as far as zoning is concerned. There's three now and three is proposed. And whether this works or not, somebody can make their parking area bigger if they want. As long as they stay within the off coverage. Off coverage and setback, yeah. Just saying, Brad, that they could do this almost as a artistic piece, even if it might not function. Whatever their motivation is. Yeah. As long as they don't park beyond that property. Overlay Scott on this plan, the rectangles sort of going at a slight angle, those are the parking areas they're trying to get. Correct. But they're not really part of this plan because they're not within the art scale. This is, I'm not sure I followed that. They're not planning to gravel down inside those rectangle areas. I think they are. In this plan? Yes. Only the areas. The red areas show the additional coverage for the parking. But again, it doesn't show the long strip of gravel along the Northern property boundary. But that would have to be removed to be in compliance. Right. All the gravel, yeah. Looks like part of some of the reason would be for backing out and being close to the building, but it looks like even with two cars there, you're having to back out on the street. Is that, am I seeing that right? I think this configuration would still need backing out. I think the only advantage of this configuration is that nobody's in tandem. But again, I don't see how that space for this North can be accessed with the other two. Okay. Well, we have the applicant here. You heard the city. What's your response? Hi, everyone. Thank you for having me. My name is Irina Poebyryznyuk. It is Ukrainian. I'm from Ukraine, but you can call me Bob because I know that's very hard to say my last name. This plan, so there is, I wanna say, clarify a couple of things. Yes, this whole project was completed on September 1st and I'm gonna say something not kind of, well, I guess both to kind of justify my actions, but also to give the city a very important piece of feedback. I did a lot of research about zoning applications and you see there is a chat here. I have already had the pleasure of pulling a permit before by myself. And it was very clear with the chat that it required a permit. Here, I went on your website and I looked at the page when do I need the zoning permit and I searched for gravel. And the only mention of gravel was if you are paving over the areas that previously had gravel, which is obviously not my situation. And to me, after reading all the documentation that I could find, it was very, very, very clear that you do need permits for pavement and you do not need permits for gravel. That also made a lot of sense to me as a non-city planner, non-architect. And so I went ahead with the project. I called the Local Stallman Distribution Company that you, by the way, recommend in your official documentation. They didn't warn me about any permits unlike the shared people who did. And then I hired a local landscaping company to do the work. And not only did they not warn me about permits, they assured me that I have it in writing that this gravel work did not require any permits. And in fact, I could have paved my entire backyard if I wanted to end of quote. So once that's out of the way, let's talk about the dimensions. Another thing I do know that in that page that I looked, it's very clear, it does say that extending parking requires a permit. That's why I applied for this permit before we started parking cars there. Cars have not been parked there at all. So that happened on September 1st. And unfortunately it's been going on till now. And there are still things that are just coming up now for some reason, like for example, these aisle width requirement that I just found out from a staff reporter a week ago, I never heard of it before. There is actual, I talked, I got Bill Ward on the phone and we discussed this case. And I asked him a lot of questions and he gave me some very good recommendations for this hearing and for this case in general. And there is actually an updated plan. I don't know if Scott, if you want to, if you can pull it up. I uploaded it in the system. It's called December 5th, option 1A. And that one shows the updated site plan. Bill Ward was able to email me the table 8111, the table 8111 that I found on the internet, I think was obsolete and it had different measurements on it. So I just redid the plan according to the one that Bill sent me and that one does include three parking spaces with 12 feet access aisle. And from what I can say, every single requirement is met in that site plan. And it's under, it's exactly 40% coverage. Scott, do you have that up or not? I'm unaware of that site plan. So you said you uploaded it in the permit system and I can stop sharing, upload the permit system and see if it's there. Well, you haven't reviewed it, right? No. Okay, well, that's interesting. I don't see it, but it does make me think perhaps the best thing to do would be to continue this to give you a chance to review, to see if it solves the problems and that way we could wrap this up and approve it if it works instead of issuing a decision and then having something uploaded that's not before us. That's, what does the board think? That's a motion, I second it. All right. I think that's a good idea. I hope the applicant is over here with that too. It just, it does seem like the right thing to do is just put all this energy into a new site plan. We should be able to see it. Right, exactly. Okay, so we have a motion to continue this. We wanna do it to a date certain, the next, the first meeting in January maybe? January 3rd is pretty darn fall. If the site plan is compliant, I can approve it and presumably the appeal goes away. Right, okay. So why don't we continue it until the next, to the next meeting in December? And if it, you know, at least then we'll have that site plan in front of us. Okay, December 20th is pretty darn fall too. But it may go away, right? It might be, right, it could go away. Yeah, let's hope it's compliant. It's me regretting this decision in about 10 minutes. Okay, well let's continue it to the next meeting in December and we can see if it is compliant and goes away. So to be clear, that would be December 20th. Right, yep, okay. On January 3rd, I have another hearing for the variance. Would it make sense to have those two together or that it doesn't matter? Oh, that's a good point. With us? Well, that would solve this discussion. You know, let's put it on January 3rd. Yep. Got it. Okay, all those in favor? Aye. Aye. All right, that is addressed. To speak on this, Carol Ziena. What'd you say? Carol Ziena, speaking on this or? Carol, I think she was in support of the applicant. No? Yeah, I think so. Okay, well, we made our motion and I think that was. Okay, January 3rd. Last item on our agenda tonight is 87 Hungerford Terrace. ZP 22-524. We have the applicants. Hi there, this is Chi. Hi Chi. Can I get you to raise your right hand? Oh, can you see me? We don't see you, but just say your right hand's up. It's good enough. Yes, it's up. Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? Yes.  We have a staff report. Could you just walk us through specifically what you are looking to do here? Yes, so currently there is an existing garage that measures, I measured it. It was 12-foot-5 by 22-foot-3 and it is listed as a historic structure. The structure is in very poor condition and we would like to demolish that structure and replace it with a garage structure. That's just a little bit larger than it is currently with a second level that can be used as storage or office or sitting space and gardening supplies. Okay, so the request to demolish the historic structure is based on overall long-term neglect. Neglect. And we see some discussion about this. Can you walk us through the justification for demolition by neglect here? I don't believe that the owners have neglected this garage. They have, in the past, tried to repair if you were to see some of the images there with some framing that was added in the interior to help support the roof that had begun to fail and leak. They had tried to fix the door that no longer runs on its track smoothly on its own. It doesn't stay shut. They do have to kind of put a board and a stick in there to help keep it shut. When they had contacted somebody about repairing that, they were told that the parts to repair it were not available anymore. So that's why it has not been replaced since then. I'm sorry, what else would you like to know? There was a discrepancy that I found in the historic listing of it, stating that the structure sits on a foundation, which it does not. And that is a large reason why it has begun to fail over time. Anything else we should know about the project? I mean, I think you've read the definition and the description that it did have an addition added to the original garage and the addition of that was put onto the front of it. So if you're looking at it from Hungerford Terrace, you're not actually seeing the original building from the street. Okay. So I guess I have a question for staff too about something that was uploaded, but what is the board? Any questions from the board? Any thoughts from the board? I have a question. And this is Mary's project, Ryan's project. Last chance, Ryan. The height, I thought as a, it's already at the whatever is two foot three, whatever is the setback, that they can go vertically, they're not restricted to the height on that, the non-compliance of the setback. Is that, am I remembering that right? They're restricted, they can go up because it's an accessory structure. There's normally a five foot setback for accessory structures that are no taller than 15 feet. So because it already exists at that height, they can't go up above 15 feet to maintain the non-conformity. I thought, is it the non-conformity to the setback, not the height? Well, I guess technically it's both because, well, the setback is the non-conformity that's addressed in the report. The height, I guess, didn't play a role in the non-conformity aspect. It would create a non-conformity if it were to go above 15 feet in height with a new structure. But primarily the setback is the non-conformity. I guess, I'm just having a little brain cramp here, but people do all kinds of ADUs pushing up to the setback line and they're going higher than 15 feet. I don't know of an example like that. The code does call out specifically if you're non-conforming with regard to setback, you can go up, so long as if it's an accessory structure, you can go up, so long as you don't go above 15 feet in height. So Brad, if I may, the applicable provision expressly allows for vertical expansion of existing closed space for single-family homes and community centers and specifically calls out for accessory structures, 15 feet tall or less. In this case, it's less. The existing structure can go up to a limit of 15 feet. So the non-conformity is a setback, but by increasing height, you're increasing the degree of non-conformity. You're increasing the building volume in the setback. That becomes a problem. Right, so the short story is that codes as accessory structures can do vertical expansion to what they're limited to 15 feet. Jeff, I'm just trying to orient myself. The property backs up to the new Y parking lot. And there's a fence, how tall is the fence at the back of the property? The fence at the back of the probably, I believe, let me see if I can look in some photos. It's not the greatest fence back there. I think it's really just a little more than a wire type fence at the very back of the property, which only, I mean, there's a hill that, from our property down to the Y parking lot, but it's only, I would say about four feet. Okay. And the non-conformity is on the side adjacent to your neighbor, not to the Y property. Correct. And then the fence that's to the 308 College Street, our wooden fence is higher than that, but the reasoning for wanting to keep on that line is because moving it off the existing driveway makes the garage a bit difficult to maneuver in and out of. Anything else from the board? Are there any other, are there any members of the public here to talk about this project? We have free folks, AJ, with their hands up. I don't know if the involvement's worn in, I kind of think not. I don't think so. So if you'd like to speak on this application, please raise your right hand and state that anything you sit and swear that anything you say will be true and correct under the pains and penalties of perjury. Just blanked on that totally. I do. So, hello? Can you hear us? Hello? Can you hear us? Yeah, we can hear you. Who is this? We're the owners. Okay. James and Maddie Posig. Hi. Hi. Hi. Just to address your first question, we've lived here 40 years. We've made multiple, I shouldn't say attempts, we've repaired the garage over the 40 years. So there's no neglect. We put on a new roof. We fixed, we put on a new roof twice. We fixed the door multiple times. It's from 1920. It's just outlived. It's the weather. It's the elements. It's the snow. It's the freezing. Right now, when there's a windstorm with a thunderstorm, pieces of the roof fly into the drive light. It's, we've tried to rehabilitate it. It's like beyond. Hello? Did you hear me? Yeah, back property doesn't really have a fence, but it has a cedar hedge along the whole back of the property. Okay. So you can't really see it from anywhere. Anything else? If we were to move it to abide by the five foot clearing that wouldn't align with the driveway, we wouldn't be able to get a car in. It's a very small, I mean, Ryan came, he looked at it if he wants to speak to it. It's a very tight area. We're downtown almost. So there's, we don't have a lot of land. And so the driveway is very narrow between our house and the adjoining property. And so if we were to move the garage over to make it compliant, we wouldn't be able to get into it. And this is, if I'm in the Y parking lot, this is the little white shed I can sort of see from the Y parking lot, right? Yeah. Exactly. Yeah, with like plants growing in it or something. Correct, yes. Anybody else here speak on this application? I thought I saw Sharon and having her hand up, no? Yes, you did. I was just waiting until Maddie was done. So my name is Sharon Busher and I don't live in that area. And there Maddie and her husband are probably James who are wondering why I'm speaking on this. And I am, it's because I've been very concerned about the demolition by neglect of historic accessory structures. And so I read the application and read through the information. And I actually called earlier to speak with Scott because I wasn't really sure what the criteria was for the DRB to determine that this really was demolition by neglect. But as this application has unfolded, it's demolition because of age of structure I'm hearing and inability to repair because of not being able to find parts. I have a garage attached to my house. My house was built in the 1928 or something like that. And I can't open my garage door because I can't find replacement parts either. So I empathize with this. But I wanted to say that in the report that referenced historic structures, they said that the garage originally before any of us were here was put on cinder blocks. And I think that I saw that when I lived on Colchester Avenue where the cinder blocks almost disintegrate. So I think that it might not be an inconsistency between what the report says and what you actually observe now. I wanted to just state that once again for the DRB that every time a project like this comes forward, I'm hoping that we're documenting all of these so that we understand whether or not they're approved and whether or not it's appropriate to approve the demolition. The fact that we want to keep some of these historic accessory structures. And I continue to be concerned that we don't have adequate criteria when it truly is neglect to deny. So those are my comments more general than specific because most of my questions were answered through the process. Thank you. Sharon, will you remind us of your mailing address, please? I'm sorry, my mailing address? Yeah. Yes. It's 52 East Avenue in Burlington. Thank you. My husband would like to speak. Is that appropriate? Sure. Okay. Okay. The garage was, we think, both around the same time as the house. The house was built really well. It's got a lot of craftsmanship, workmanship. The garage, however, was built with, I think I have no idea, the leftover materials because there's different sized boards. There's the two by fours are not two by fours like through three by, They're two by threes. Two by threes, yeah. And the whole thing is not done by the same guys that built the house. You can tell it's just, and the floor is actually dirt. And then they poured some concrete over the dirt. It's like a slab on top of it. Like they poured it after they built the garage. I think that's what it looks like. And that concrete is all cracking. Now, some of it could be repaired, but when we brought people over to look at it, they all said, this is ridiculous. You don't want to do that. It won't last, whatever. And so that's why we're, that's part of it. The other part is, it's just not functional because it's not wide enough. It's not long enough, which I realized there's some restrictions about all that. And that's a real good question I have is why is the 15 feet? I heard you discuss it. Why is it 15 feet and maybe not 16 or 17 feet? Which would actually make the upstairs of the garage and the garage a living area that we could convert into an efficiency apartment. And it just seems like it's prohibiting that. When we put on our upstairs, we put on the entire second floor here. I wanted to put a dharma that was like seven feet and they made me make it eight feet so that people could live in it. And I liked it. It was a good thing that they did that. I don't have a lot of experience with design or anything really. So I was happy they did it. Anyway, I don't even, that's I just wondering why it's 15 feet and couldn't be 16 or 17 feet. I don't want to go at like 35 feet or 20 or you know what I'm saying? And I don't know why I'm going with this, but okay, I'm okay, I'm done. Okay. Is that an arbitrary number or 15 feet? Or is it just a rule and there's no reason for it? I believe it's a rule in the ordinance. But so there's no real reason for it. 15 feet seems like a weird number because you know, typically a story is eight feet with a little bit in between for. It is not atypical in a lot of zoning regulations for building heights of this type to be 15 feet. South Burlington has one very similar. Oh, I didn't know it was not typical. I just said it.  Okay, I'm done. I think it specifically applies to accessory structures. And in particular, those that are already out of conformance with some other standards. So I take your point and it may be worth raising with your city councilor with respect to changes to the ordinance, but we have to apply the ordinance as it is. Okay. And the other thing, if I might, the second story that we're putting on is a dormer. And the rule is that the dormer can only be half the size of the structure. And why is that? It would be nicer if it was, could be bigger than half the size. Again, that's what the ordinance says. It's just an ordinance with no actual rationale. Okay, I can, I understand. I think the rationale is to create a uniform design across types of structures in the city. But I mean, I see dormers, full dormers on lots of buildings. It's not. Well, were they built when this ordinance was adopted or not? No, they're old, they're, I don't know. There had been different rules back then. Yeah. Probably. Okay. Just to clarify, it's just, it's just something that I understand rules and I do understand, you know, I'm not trying to, it just seemed that it was a inefficient sort of rule. That's all. All right, thank you. Okay. So unless the board members have any other questions, I think I would entertain a motion to close the hearing on this agenda item. So A.J., Carol Zena had her hand up. I don't know if she wants to speak to this. I thought it was for the other application. Was it? Okay. Yeah, I thought so too. Okay, Carol, are you looking to pipe in on this or no? We'll take that as a no. Take that as a no. All right. So with that, I'll close the public hearing on this item. And that is our agenda for the evening. There's one more item. What's it say? A.J. Sorry. Not being familiar with the DRB process. Who's talking? Maddie Posig. So Maddie, the way this is going to work is we close public hearings. I should explain this at the beginning. I'm sorry. All right. And now the DRB has to deliberate on its public hearing agenda items. We typically do that at the end of the meeting. And we're probably going to do that tonight. We'll deliberate. It's not a recorded meeting. People can't offer any further testimony or evidence if we have enough information to reach a decision. We'll do that. And then a written findings and conclusions on an application gets written up. Us signs it, probably me. And then that'll get issued by staff. You can always check with staff tomorrow to see if we approve something. They'll usually let you know. But that's what that means. Okay, thank you. And then what happens after that to get the permit? Like what's the process then? If you approve it. Staff will walk that out. You'll be able to pick up your permit once the appeal period ends. Okay. Thank you for explaining. Just the next step. So I was confused that you were ending it. We didn't know the end result. So now. Yeah, so we have two stages. We have the public hearing and the deliberation. Okay. Great. All right. Thank you very much for explaining that. Appreciate it. Yeah. We had that sign application. Hey, Scott, can you take down the plans? Upsharing the screen. Yeah, that's a sign application. Right, you're right. I'm sorry, I forgot. I was looking at the end of the agenda. Right, the one we continued. Is the applicant here, Scott? He's not here. No. He was reminded a few times this week and last week that he's got a meeting upcoming and he never picked up his phone or responded to an email. So I don't know what to tell you, unfortunately. What does the board want to do? I'm accused from that. I move that we continue it to a later meeting date. It needs to show up. I'm just trying to find us a meeting date that's pretty empty in the end of. February 7th is the next available. February 7th is the next available. Okay. So I'm seconded. All those in favor? All right, done. So the catch is you guys need to approve next year's meeting schedule. Assuming you do that, it's February 7th. All right, we do that in deliberation, right? Yeah. So we have two things to deliberate on and then we have the meeting schedule. We have two? Didn't we? No, actually we only have one. I'm going to put two. Can we continue the other one? Yeah. So what do you guys think about hunger for terrorists? Recording stopped. I think it seems to make sense to me. I had no issue with taking it down, even though I'm trying to understand that 15-foot thing on this and some of the agency. Yeah, I'm still here. I'll let that go. I would just say. Yeah. The only thing I'd say on it is more of the language we use and I think Sharon has referred to this a couple of times. We're not approving this under the ordinance because of demolition by neglect. Right. Demolition by neglect is an adverse finding. If you demolish something by neglect, this is 22-52487 Hunderford Terrace. I move that we approve the application and adopt staff's findings and conditions. I'll second that. All those in favor? All right, it is approved. Recording stopped. So meeting schedule, did we do that by a vote? I suppose we could. I only have one question on it. Scott. Yeah. July 5th, you have marked as a Tuesday, which would be normal and highlighted. Curious, is that an actual Tuesday? Let me check quick. It is a Wednesday, FIA. I think it's a Wednesday. Yeah, it's a Wednesday. Yeah. And I want the board to note that these are marked as in-person in the conference room meetings. When are we gonna start that? January. Looks like we're starting on January 3rd. That's right. As of January, we're into the new year and there needs to be an in-person presence unless the legislature changes that. So there we go. So there will be no, to be clear then, there's not gonna be a virtual option. We're all gonna be in-person versus the hybrid we were trying to do. That's up to you guys. There has to be in-person whether it includes hybrid is up to you. Well, I think it might be nice to continue to offer hybrid, not just for COVID, but because I think it's quite convenient for some people. I think it's easier for us to schedule. I think it helps with recusals. If it technologically proves to be challenging, I think we can just say too bad. But I'd like to at least try to offer it. And what does an in-person presence constitute? Scott, is that a one DRB member in person? Is that just the staff in person with whoever shows up? At a bare minimum, staff needs to be present in case anyone from the public shows up. I think we run into an issue of sort of critical mass of randomly having some people show up and people not showing up. To me, it's one or the other. I mean, I can see having a limited virtual presence, but if we're gonna do it, it seems having a critical mass of people show up at the hearing, making presentations. To me, otherwise, it gets confusing. Just keep doing it this way. So the default would be you show up in person, but the hybrid is available if you can't make it. And we would ask members to be there if they can. That's just my two cents on it. I mean, if you were gonna figure out how they wanted to do it. Yeah, I mean, it did seem like the hybrid was not ideal. The hybrid did not work well. I would agree with that. I'd prefer to just start back up in person. I know there's convenience with the virtual option, but in just the meetings, from my perspective, I preferred kind of the in-person contact with the applicants. I mean, we don't even see the applicants when it's virtual. And while it'll be a little bit of a transition back to the way it used to be, I think ultimately it makes it for a better meeting. I agree. I think if people request it for special circumstances and it's easier than rescheduling, we can certainly offer it. We have that technology, we can rebuild him. But I would like it to be the default to be in person for applicants too. Is everybody comfortable with that? I'm curious. Yeah, I mean, that's why we brought it up. I think it's worth trying. I will say with somewhat younger kids, it has been nice to be virtual on some days, just to do anything. But I like having an excuse to tell them to figure out their own stuff as well. I mean, look, what makes virtual great, and I'm sure Jeff agrees with this, is that you don't have to drive down to Barnard, Vermont for a 7 p.m. zoning hearing on a Wednesday in March, right? I mean, even the people in Barnard don't wanna drive to Barnard Town Hall at 7 p.m. on a Wednesday in March. So, but luckily we're not Barnard. We don't have a full quorum of our members here, so we may not be getting a full cross-section, but I would be open to, but let's try going back into full in person, see how it goes, and see what response we get from applicants, and we could always adjust again, but... That's right. So, I move that we approve the meeting schedule. I can. Recording in progress. I correct it to the July 5th, Wednesday. Yeah, July 5th is a Wednesday. We go by the dates, not the written day, but... Yep. So, all those in favor? All right, we have a meeting scheduled. Recording stopped. Which has no bearing on our next meeting, which is the 20th. Nope. Yep. And Scott, are you... I can't remember. You had been sending out, someone had been sending out meeting notices, like invitations with the dial-in information. I guess we don't need that any longer. We don't need the Zoom. We don't need that. And we shifted over to a recurring meeting a while ago, so those individual invites. Okay. Yeah. Stop. The 20th looks like... Is the 20 Pine Street Church one gonna be... That's the plan. That's gonna be a while. Is that gonna be a wild party? It could well be. Okay. All right, everyone, good night. Okay, bye. See you, Ryan. We'll see you in a stove. Yeah, good night, man. We'll see you. Take care, y'all.