event. I will call the meeting to order. So, DRB members, I believe we have enough of them here, so we will get going. Hello, everybody. All right, my name is Kate McCarthy. I'm the chair of the City of Montpelier Development Review Board, and I'm calling this meeting to order. It's May 3, 2021. And what I'll do is I'll say the names of our board members who can then unmute and introduce themselves. So, board members are Rob Goodwin, Abby White, Joe Kiernan, Gene Leon, and we are joined and supported by Meredith Grandville staff. Hello. Thank you, Meredith. Great. So, what we'll do next is we'll go through the procedures that we have been following for our remote meetings. And for that, I will turn it over to Meredith. Okay. Just an FYI, it looks like Claire Rock will be on shortly. Great. Claire is another DRB member. We've just gone through and all the DRB members have said hi. So, welcome, Claire. Well, we've got somebody else coming on. Sorry, hold on a second, I got to do my share screen stuff. So, I'm going to share screen. And this is really more for people watching from home than what's being shared on the screen, but especially anybody who hasn't attended a DRB meeting before. This is just going to be a little overview of our procedures here that we're on remote meeting. So, for those of you who are watching from home, if you want to join the meeting, you can use this Zoom link here. And that'll bring you into the Zoom video conference platform. You can also dial in at this phone number. And you plug in this meeting ID when prompted. And that will let you join it with your phone. If anybody has a problem accessing the meeting, please email me at this email address down at the bottom. And I will do my best to help you get into the meeting. If anyone is in the Zoom platform and is having difficulties accessing different video conferencing features, please use the Zoom chat function for those issues. We'd like to restrict the chat function to technical issues, but it is there. And if it is used, you'll get added to the public record. This Zoom meeting is being recorded, as well as streamed live via Orca media. Turning your video on is optional. All public testimony will be taken verbally. And please keep your microphone on mute. When you're not speaking, this will reduce background noise. I don't think... Hold on, I'm just going to scroll down to see if anybody participating by phone. We don't at the moment. If you are interested in speaking on a particular matter, and I wasn't able to check you in at the beginning, we might check with a couple of people before I hand this back over to the chair. But if you want to speak on a particular matter, please raise your hand at that time, and the chair will give some guidance on how she's going to do that for the different applications. And you can use raise your hand physically if you're in the video, or you can use the raise hand button on your toolbar, your Zoom toolbar.  And then we'll know that you want to speak. Once the chair has recognized you, please then unmute your microphone, confirm that you can be heard, and provide your full name and address for the record. You will then be free to provide your questions or comments. And we ask you to keep them to two minutes, at least initially. Board members will have the opportunity to respond or ask questions of you. And the applicant may have an opportunity to respond to whatever your questions or comments were. The chair may grant additional time for speakers who have follow-up questions or comments. But we do ask that you confirm that with the chair. And then when you're finished talking, please mute your microphone. You will be able to provide additional input later if the chair calls on you. In the event the public is unable to access this meeting, it will be continued to a time and place certain. If anyone is having connectivity issues, usually that shows because there's issues with talking in the halts, or there's slow video, try turning off your video option or closing other applications that you may have open on your phone or computer. If anybody wants to see the documents being, oops, it's just slowed down, being shown and is having problems with the share screen or looking at them over ARCA, they can use this link. This is also available if you want to download the meeting packet. If you're here in the Zoom call, but things are slow for you, feel free to download that instead of the share screen. That especially comes into play with people who are on phones or other smaller tablets. Sometimes they have a hard time seeing what's being shown. Please note that all votes taken during this meeting will be done by roll call vote. And I will now hand this meeting back over to Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much, Meredith. All right, great. So Meredith, did you want to check in with any potential participants other than the applicants who you weren't otherwise aware of? Yeah, I have a Michael Reed. I'm not sure what matter you're on for, if you could maybe unmute and let us know. There we go. I think you should be able to hear me. Yes. Okay. No, I was just, I'm a neighbor of a potential neighbor anyway of Jared Cobb and the applicant and just observing unless an issue comes up. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thanks, Wilson. I should say we're just asking you so we kind of know the scope of who might like to talk. It is absolutely acceptable to be here to listen and to ask questions if they come up. So yeah, it just helps manage and make sure that we've made sure everybody who wants to talk has a chance to talk on an application. And I'm guessing that Anne Frazier and W. Frazier are both on the same application, but I don't want to assume too too much. Thank you, Anne. Yes, Bill's in Maine, so I don't know what sort of perception he has, but yes, we're both okay. So and Kate, just so you know, they're both on about the Town Hill Road application. Great. Thank you. Thank you for being here, everybody. And we do have a Samuel Higgins as well. Mr. Higgins, if you could let us know what application you're interested in. Yes, I'm, I've met voices from most of the building. Thank you very much. Okay, great. I think that covers it. The only other thing I will note is that this meeting is being recorded by Orca Media, which is standard for our meetings. Okay, so I'm going to move to the next agenda item, which is the approval of the agenda. So I'll take a motion to approve the agenda as printed. So moved. Motion by Rob. Second. Second from Jean. Thank you. I'll call the roll for the approval of the agenda as printed. Rob? Yes. Abby? Yes. Joe? Yes. Jean? Yes. Claire? Yes. I vote yes. And is the Kevin who joined us, the Kevin who was also a DRB member? It is. And I'm having trouble getting the video to work, but let's proceed. And I'm sorry, I was a few minutes late here. No trouble, Kevin. Thanks for joining us. And would you like to vote on the agenda? The approved agenda? And I vote yes. Very good. Thank you. We have approved the agenda. The next item is comments from the chair. And I will just note for everyone attending, one thing about the way that we run our meetings during these Zoom times is that we deliberate on applications after we've taken all the evidence. We talk about how the application meets the criteria in an executive session. And we do that in the Zoom environment in order to make better decisions. It's a more expedient process. And it still results in a written decision as soon as possible. I just always point that out because going into this executive session does not mean that there's anything good, bad, or otherwise about one's application. It just is the process that we're undertaking right now. Okay? So item number six is to review and approve the meeting minutes of April 5th, which is the last time we were together, and the people eligible to vote on those minutes are myself, Kevin, Rob, and Abby. So is there a motion to approve the minutes as printed? So moved. Motion by Kevin. Second. Second by Abby. Okay, let's vote. Kevin? Yes. Rob? Yes. Abby? Yes. And I also vote yes. So we've approved the minutes of our last meeting. Very good. All right. Thank you. So we are on to the business of the evening. And so the first item is for Greenuck Avenue. And the applicants are Caitlyn Patterson and Jared Pog. This is the review of construction of a single family home for a height waiver. So the way we'll go about this, so you know what to expect, is I will swear you in. We'll get an overview of the project from Meredith and then from Jared. And then I do want to remember, and I'll just ask it right now, before we get into it, did any board members visit the site?  No? Okay. If you had to put it in the record, that's fine. So we'll start with this very again. So Jared, if you wouldn't mind raising your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? Yes. Great. Thank you. All right. So turn to Meredith for a quick overview of the project. So I'm going to try and stick to very basics and then the procedural matters on this. So as Cait said, this is an application to build a single family home on a vacant parcel. And sorry, I think I have kept the wrong picture in the staff report. Sorry about that. And the reason that this is coming before the Development Review Board is because they're asking for a height waiver. They're asking to build a house that's taller than would normally be allowed, at least administratively. So this waiver process is in there so the Board can look at differing factors to determine whether or not something that is technically higher than 35 feet tall should be allowed in this particular instance. And as you look through the staff report, there are a few different areas in red. Some of them are places where we may not have had 100% information. It doesn't mean that it's something that would have triggered DRB review. It's just that there's been back and forth with Department of Public Works in many cases where we didn't necessarily have all of that information. But we've gotten, when we're ready for it, for those Department of Public Works holes, there has been some additional information from them. So I'm prepared to read that into the record when we're ready for it. Sounds great. Make sense. Summarize. Sure. Yeah. So I'll turn to Jared. And Jared, if you'd just like to summarize your project and briefly what you're asking for, that would help us get oriented. And what we'll do after that is we'll go through the staff report and take a look at those items where there's a little more discussion needed so that the Board can make sure that all the requirements of the zoning are met. But I'll turn it over to you for now. Okay. Great. This is my first rodeo. So feel free to ask questions. Yes, my wife, Caitlin Patterson and I, we live in Montpelier now and we purchased the land on Greenock Ave last September. We've spent a lot of time on the land. We have two young boys just kind of orienting ourselves and figuring out what we want to build. We're working with an architect to design the house. And we feel like we've designed a house that fits in with the character of the neighborhood. It's a two story house. And it's oriented with basically the skinny side of the house facing Greenock Ave and the broad side of the house facing south towards the land to maximize solar access and energy efficiency. The side of the house that faces the street is 33 feet to the peak and the land slopes back away from the street basically in any location where you could build a house on the lot. So as a result of that, the average height of the house measured to the average grade is 37 feet. So we're requesting a two foot waiver over the 35 feet threshold. Yeah, I think that's that's pretty much it. Standard two story house that would like to build. Okay, your video's freezing. Oops. Okay. I'm going to go off video. I should call in on the phone. Try talking for a minute, Kate. I think she's just going to try and call in on the phone. Let's just sit tight. Yeah, the all the work on the eat on the fiber lines here in Montpelier I think has been occasionally screened people up. About as zip ties like plastic I found from my house from the fiber works pretty, pretty pretty up there. It came at a good time, you know, it's like plastic everywhere. Hey, everybody, this is Kate. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes, Kate. You're coming in clear. Loud and clear. All right. I'm sorry for the delay. Things were just getting good. All right. So we continue. Yes, please. Okay, thank you all. So what we'll do, like I said, at the outset is we'll just walk through those areas on which there are some questions and the the main ones I believe are the height waiver, a little bit on steep slopes in case there are public works comments, a little bit on stormwater management and the question about the driveway surface. So we'll hit those highlights and then if if VRB members or neighbors have any questions about some of the other standards, we can go through those but we'll focus our time on the things that require some discussion. So I'm using the staff report as the guide and pages three and four and five are where we talk about the height waiver. So as we heard the average height of the building is 37 feet but it's 33 at the front to peak and it's 41 at the back, I think. 41 high in in the rear because of a walkout basement design. So okay. So VRB members, it's our job. The rule says there's a we're requesting a waiver. Does it request for a waiver of the height maximum? The waiver provision says we can do no more than five feet as a waiver and the things that we need to take into account are that this shall not authorize, alter the essential character of the neighborhood, substantially or permanently impair the lawful use or development of adjacent property, reduce access to renewable energy resources or be detrimental to the public welfare and the proposed development is beneficial or necessary for the continued reasonable use of the property. So these are the waiver criteria and I wonder if any VRB members want to ask about or comment or reflect on how they feel the project meets these criteria. I guess I'll make a comment here. I think that the you know the arguments put forward in the application about solar access and energy efficient design are sort of like very appealing to consider approval of this. I think that they're good grounds for you know for this waiver and that's very well founded. And I would add to that that the topography of the site really drives the request. Yeah and I observed that the as the the way that the building faces the street is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the height as it faces the street is visually aligned with with with other things that are going on there. Okay Claire. Thank you Kate. I had a question about whether an alternative design that met the regulation was pursued and and what was what was the rationale to why the building could not be built within the regulation. Yeah that's a good question. We we haven't pursued an alternative design. We we feel like the house we're really focused on this house fitting in with the character of the neighborhood we're designing it in a way so that it will have minimal impact on the land and the materials that we're using to build it. So we haven't considered an alternative design because we we just feel like it's it's a pretty standard two-story house. So it's a good question. Thanks Claire. Thanks Jared. So I want to look at the waiver criterion that is the proposed development is beneficial or necessary for the continued reasonable use of the property. We heard about the site specific constraints in order to put a house here. Are there any questions from DRB members about that criterion? Can the staff report to make sure that we that we talk about this? So the 37 foot average constitutes the two-foot waiver request. The maximum height is 41 feet which is a six-foot waiver request which is above what we are authorized to give. In this case Meredith could you could you tell me about averages versus basements versus can you can you tell me a little bit about how we might consider this? So in the regulations when it hold on one second and I think I put this in the staff report but I want to make sure I'm looking at the original. Thank you this is the part of the meeting where I put Meredith on spot. I always like to go back to the original in case I made a mistake in the staff report. So height of buildings is measured as the vertical distance from the highest point of the structure to the average of the highest and lowest points where the exterior wall meets the finish grade. So even though I mean you have a 33 foot height in the front and the 41 foot in the back, the height of the structure for purposes of measuring the max height under our regulations right now is the 37 feet. That's what you're getting a waiver to. So it's a two-foot waiver. It's not a six foot. Okay great. Thank you for correcting that. What I said could have left the impression that we were asking for a six foot waiver than we are. Thanks for that clarification Meredith. This has got it. So really all we're talking about is a two foot variance based upon the design as submitted. So we're well within our authority to to entertain that. And for anybody watching from home the reference is 3002h5. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Do DRB members have any further questions about the height waiver? There's one question. So the way I look at the plans that appears that the existing grades of the ground will be preserved. Is that correct? So that the measurement is, I mean the regulations read as measured from finished grade meaning after construction. So it doesn't appear you have a grading plan. So are you changing that to, are you doing any grading on the site? That's my question. We do, we did work with Grenier Engineering and Don Marsh and we do have a slope plan and grading plan and all of those things. But no, we don't, we aren't making any significant changes to the topography of the land. I think it's still a little bit TBD based on what we uncover when we dig for the foundation, but the house will pretty much sit on the land as the land is. Yeah, Rob, if you go into the what's labeled as a slope analysis plan or even the overall site plan, they do show some of the proposed grade lines, elevation lines versus what's existing. So there is some discussion there, or some points. Yeah, okay. Okay, thanks. I'm going to consider that as segue Rob into the next section for discussion, which is the steep slope section. So what we're seeing here is there, first I'll ask, are there any comments received from public works about this? Yes. Okay. And sticking to just the steep slopes, the comments from, and this is from Kurt Monica, who's the deputy director of the department, said that the steep slopes in this location are fairly minimal, and there are not any concerns with this as long as silt fence and other stormwater erosion control, best management practices are constructed and maintained appropriately. And he has some other comments on those points as well. Okay. All right. So moving on to steep slopes, that was really the only highlight in the staff report as far as what needs to be considered, there's a small amount of land. Can folks still hear me? All right. Yes. Great. Okay. So disturbance of say 5,791 square feet of land over 15% and about 2,700 square feet of land over 20%. And those are both under our threshold. Is that right, Meredith? Correct. Okay. Any questions? Any thresholds for the board to have to make that decision? Okay. Well, we're there then. Any questions from board members about the slopes on the site? No. Okay. Thanks. I apologize for my internet. It's one of those nights. All right. So what I'd like to do is move on to page 8 of the staff report in section 3008 and section 3009 erosion control and stormwater management. Just to check and see if there are any public works comments on those, Meredith. Yes. So for these, it's a bit combined in the comments from Kurt that, so I'm just going to read it verbatim at this point, because I couldn't transfer around. The only drainage feature shown on the plan is a short swale that would eventually drain into a wetland area and therefore not likely to adversely impact adjoining property owners. Footing and roof drain discharge points should be indicated on the site plan. So that's something that, end quotes, that's something that could be put on to a final site plan prior to permit issuance. Okay. So the next paragraph from Kurt is the silt barrier indicated on the erosion control plan should be extended to cover all potentially impacted areas downstream of the disturbed limits. This barrier needs to be extended to both the north and the south along the western border of the limits of disturbance. Disturbed areas should stabilize with seed and mulch within seven days of final grading in accordance with the Vermont low risk site handbook for erosion prevention and sediment control. This is particularly important in the area of budding the wetland buffer zone. Period. End quote. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So Jared, based on the fact that you're working with an engineering firm, I assume that those site standards for stormwater control would be followed. Would you be open to a condition requiring the extension of that silt fence to be demonstrated on the final plan? And certainly your engineer can talk with Kurt or Mary. Yeah. I think that's no problem. Once we heard comments from Kurt today, we talked to our engineer, Don, and he's already putting together a new site plan to address the questions around drainage and the silt barrier. Great. And just for the board's due diligence, board members, are you interested in knowing more about the footing and roof drain discharge points? Would that be helpful to any of you in your deliberation? Yes, please. Yeah. So I guess we'd be interested in knowing where those are, where those are located and where they drain to please, Jared. You could easily describe that. And if it would be helpful, we could ask Meredith to pull up the site plan for both to see. Sorry. Did you want me to, or folks pulling up the site plan? I didn't hear that. I can do it. Okay. Thanks. Thanks. Does this one work for you, Jared? Yeah. I mean, to be honest with you, I can't speak to, this is why we're working with an engineer. I assume that he is going to follow all the city requirements for drainage. It's not really something that I know much about, but anything that the city wants us to do with drainage from the roof, we will make sure we do. Okay. Okay. So would you be open to a condition similar to the previous one, that those final sounds like you said Don's already working that out for it? Yeah. Yeah, no problem. Great. Great. And I recognize you just got that information today from from public works. So wasn't meant to be a trick question. But thank you. Thanks for taking a look. Okay. Great. Thanks, Meredith. All right. So are there any other questions from board members about stormwater or erosion? I guess the last question that we just want to check in with you on is the driveway surface. What are you going to cover the driveway with? Gravel? Yeah. Again, we're following, I forget the actual state kind of regulation, but it'll be a standard driveway that will have gravel on the top of it. Great. Thanks. That helps us know gravel versus dirt versus pavement versus. Yeah. I'm kind of laughing because we're in the midst of designing rooms and things like that. And the driveways like that kind of one of the last things we're thinking about, but yes. I bet it's useful, but not as much fun as some of the other parts I understand. All right. I'm looking. Meredith, are there any other comments from public works that we should be considering? Yes. So there was a separate comment from public works about the driveway and access that just said that the maximum width of a residential driveway is 24 feet, whereas the plan currently shows a width of 28 feet. So this is again, one of those final details to be worked out. I would think on the final site plan that we would get prior to permit issuance if Jared is good with that smaller, but narrower driveway. And that would be, you know, that's the sort of the mouth of the driveway. So it can widen out a little bit further in for the parking area. That won't be a problem. We emailed with Kurt today and he's already good with the plan that our architects sent him. So yeah, that's not a problem at all. Thanks everybody for being in communication with one another. Okay. Board member.  All right. And there's one other thing that came through from one other comment that came through from Kurt on a different matter. So the in the plans, the water service is noted as one and a quarter inch DPW standard is one inch type cake copper. And as part of the DPW water connection permit, justification of the larger line size needs to be provided. And also sewer manual and pump station details will be needed for the department public works sewer connection permit. So those are things that's end quote. Those are things that DPW will need to work out before it issues its permits, but I wanted to make sure it was on the record here in this discussion. Probably it wouldn't hurt to have if the final site plan has those that water service line on it to have that either corrected or if they're going to still go for the one and a quarter inch just that Jared knows that he'll need to justify that for the DPW before he gets their connection permit. Okay. So what that ensures is that whatever is on the DPW connection permit is consistent with what is on the site plan or vice versa. Okay. All right. Yeah, Claire. And just a question on one of the comments that were made about the driveway surface. The zoning regulations don't specify a particular surface, correct? And is a surface a requirement of the access permit? There isn't a particular surface requirement. It's just that the sort of the category of surface, it needs to be a firm surface. Because we're not talking a large parking lot asphalt isn't necessary. And you know, something that's impermeable is supported and encouraged if possible. But on the other hand, impermeable, I'm sorry, impermeable, pervious pavers and pervious gravel systems are definitely, I think, more costly. So it's not something where the the regs require a particular surface, especially here where we're not budding up against the coverage requirements. Thank you. Yep. Thanks, Claire. That's a good question. All right. Any other questions from DRB members? Okay. And Michael Reed, is there anything that is outstanding for you? We had raised one concern with Jared that because of the tall structure and the fact that I believe he's planning a metal roof and that the roof would be oriented toward us because of the the orientation of the building relative to the street, that wanted to make sure that the the color of the roof was going to be something that would blend in some natural, darkish tone. And Jared had indicated that they plan something like a dark gray or green or brown or something like that, which would be fine. We just didn't want to see a galvanized silver roof that's going to be somewhat above the the height restriction glaring at us. Okay. So good. Good. Glad you had that conversation and got confirmation of color and the effect it would have. Thank you. Yeah, thanks, Mike. And I will add that we reached down to the abutting property owners and answered a bunch of questions over email and leading up to this meeting. And everybody's been really nice. And Mike, that was an important question. I would want to know that too. Yes. And thank you for reaching out. He gave us quite a bit of information. Great. Great. Thank you all. All right. Any last questions from board members? All right. If I'm waiting a little longer than usual, it's because I'm all audio tonight. My video is frozen, but I can hear you. So it's going to be a matter of piping up rather than raising hands, I think, for the meeting until I can go into the kitchen. So all right, great. So as I mentioned, can you folks, can you still hear me? Yes, I can hear you. Okay, thanks. As I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, we will take our deliberation into executive session just as a matter of practice during Zoom. So at this point, I will accept a motion to close the public portion of the hearing on this application and consider it an executive session when this meeting is adjourned. So it's a funky motion, but I think that's the right idea. Do I have a motion? That is definitely the right idea, and I will make that motion. Thank you, Kevin. Is there a second? Second? I think that's a second from Gene. By Gene. Great. Thank you. I will call the roll. Rob? Yes. Abby? Yes. Joe? Yes. Gene? Yes. Claire? Yes. Kevin? Yes. And I also vote yes, the motion passes unanimously. So we will deliberate an executive session at the conclusion of this meeting and then get a written decision out as soon as possible. But thank you very much for being here. Thanks for everyone who had questions and told us about this project. We'll be in touch. Thank you. Yeah, you're welcome. We're welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting if you'd like or to do other things with your evening. But thank you, and thank you, Michael, for coming as well. All right. So I'm going to switch my files and we're going to move on to the next application, which is for Town Hill Road, and Matthew Lewis is here for that. Like I said, I'm pulling up my files here. Great. Matt, welcome. Thanks for being here. So we're going to take a very similar approach to this one as we took to the last one. So where are you in? We'll get an overview of the project from Meredith and then from yourself. And then we'll look at the sort of the highlights within the staff report of areas of merit discussion. And in this application, those include steep slopes, stormwater, a little bit about driveway spacing. And then we will take a look at the special use standards for accessory dwelling units. I note that we've got some neighbors here to participate. Thanks for being here as well. And I think what I'd like to do before we get going is just get a very, very quick sense from neighbors on if there's specific issues they're here to hear about, or if it's just general listening. And that will help me know how to fold those comments in. So tell you what, I will ask that question after we get the overview of the project. Okay. So what I'll do first is I'll throw you in, Matt. So if you could please raise your right hand. Either one. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth to whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? I do. Great. Thank you. All right. So turn to Meredith for a brief overview of the project. Thank you. So similar to the prior project, this is the building of a home on a currently vacant lot. In this instance, it is a single family home plus an accessory dwelling unit. And here we don't have a hate waiver. We have some slopes involved. And the house itself is actually not being built on steep slopes. Most of the steepest slopes involved here in what really sent this to the development review board is the slopes along actually the ditch that is going to be reworked and some slopes near where the driveway goes up and behind. It's sort of a two part driveway to provide one level living for the accessory dwelling unit. And there are some questions on other areas, but it's really the steep slopes are really the biggest question. They do link into some of the questions about storm water that are in here. And as Kate said, the other thing in here that the board needs to look at is driveway spacing because in this instance, the proposed driveway location does not mean meet the zoning standard spacing requirements. Great. Okay. So that's snapshot. So I'll turn now to the applicant. I should like to give us a little bit of an overview of what your project involves. Sure. If you're interested, I'd be happy to share a visual representation of the house on screen. Sure. Yes, that'd be great. Sure. I will do my best here. So, and you'll have to forgive me, unlike our previous applicant, we don't have the luxury of having the budget to afford an architect. So I was appointed the architect having some background in design and degree in engineering. So this is the boundary line with 120, right? And then 80 Town Hill Road is over here. It doesn't show the pine trees. Those are here against that side. And please be conscious. Color schemes are not, as you can see, this is like work in progress. So color schemes are obviously right now looking at what's underneath. So no siding on the house. The rationale for having the house built like this is the intention is to have my parents living in the house. They're at an age where they no longer, they have mobility issues. And so we wanted to provide a living space that was accessible to them, as well as other family members. So we have a family member who has MS and we'd like to be able to have them all together for holidays. And after a fruitless search last summer, trying to find a house for sale in Montpelier, which is where everybody wanted to live, we decided to purchase this lot. And I started working on the design. So this has been work in progress for many months. The design itself is intended to take advantage of solar gain as much as possible. We are trying to adhere to the strictest requirements for efficiency of Vermont. We don't know if we'll be able to get net zero because we don't know if there will be solar, we'll be able to get solar panels on these because of the trees that are bordering the property. But if we are able to have a conversation about those trees, we might be able to get some solar panels up and ideally the house would produce as much energy as it consumes. So that was the original goal. So I think I've said enough about the house. I could go on for quite a while. I think the issues at hand really are around the slopes and the storm water. One of the things that we decided to do, so this is a building plan not from the engineer, but when I was working on using topography put together by some surveyors, American survey, they did the points. And you can see this is the area I think of concern as some of the slopes that get created here in order to create this driveway that allows that single level access to the rear of the building. We do plan to use a pervious gravel driveway. So that is, you know, first it gets graded, then you get a subgrade underneath of there that as your standard compacted gravel. And then on top of that you put a one and a half inch one and a six, a six inch thick layer of one and a half inch gravel. And then there's a plastic grid that goes over that and then P gravel goes and fills the voids in the grid. That plastic grid is secured to the subgrade with steel rods. So that's the hope is to mitigate some of the flow.  And the idea is to try to, you know, have that still exist to to try to minimize the amount of water that comes through the entire site. And then anything that gets across here, we want to intercept it from going to 80 Town Hill by using this pervious gravel driveway. And what that should do is direct the flow. It should first retain a lot of water itself. And then if we do get a significant storm water event, then it would direct it into the drainage here next to Town Hill Road. I did note there was a question on the previous application about foundation drains. I just showed them here. I'm going to have them added by Don Grenier to his drawing package because he's got a PE stamp. I don't. So his word carries a lot more weight. But this is basically where they were the way the building footprint is. This is a slab foundation up here. And there's a full basement here that leads out into the garage. Those perimeter drains basically go all the way around. There's a foundation drain that goes all the way around and then terminates here and here. And those would be directed down towards the other side of the driveway here and here so that any drainage would end up in the ditch. And then as far as the actual drainage from the roof line, the gutters on the accessory dwelling unit would land here in this area and then would intersect with the pervious gravel driveway for both sides here and here. And then gutters on the building itself, the front of the building actually captures most of the flow. I don't know if you could see looking at the drawing, but there's more to the front of the house than there is to the side of the house. So if I don't know if I could do this and share screen at the same time, it's kind of hard to get around with this thing. But if I showed you a profile view, there's more roof surface on the north face, sorry, the south face of the house than there is on the north face. I would have to play with it for a little bit to show you exactly how it is. But you can kind of get an idea, maybe looking at the top of it. Yeah. And are we looking at the side that has more roof space? Yes, exactly. This is the south side and this is Town Hill Road here. So the idea is that the gutter would drain off of this edge and then land in this corner and then would follow the slopes here. And this, the idea here is to have, I don't know if you would call it a rain garden, but to plant some lower-growing bushes, you know, lilacs, that kind of thing, something that would help with absorbing the flow from the roof so that it doesn't end up on the pervious asphalt driveway here. So in a major event, a major water event, severe thunderstorms or something to that effect, so your rain garden fills up, your driveway scheme fills up. How is the water diverted to the city storm water? Yeah, so this, yeah, so it follows the edge of Town Hill Road here and then there's the adjacent property, it's not shown here, has another culvert. So there's a culvert that runs underneath the driveway here that gets probably a little bit easier to see on Don's drawing. So the culvert, this is the natural flow today of the water. So it really wouldn't... Coming off the side there, yes. Exactly. So it just, it comes off the side, flows down this way and then ends up in the adjacent culvert, which is their driveways right here on 80 and then continues down to, Meredith, help me remember the name of the stream that's over there. Is it Blanchard? Blanchard Brook, that's right, thank you. So it goes under Easy Street and then it lands in Blanchard Brook. And when you're, when people are ready, I do have some comments from Department of Public Works on this matter. Okay, let's do those comments from DPW and then I will keep my promise of making sure we hear from neighbors about the issues they are curious about. I suspect storm water might be among them, so I want to round that out with a Public Works comment. Okay, sorry, I thought for a second maybe I was looking at the wrong comments because I looked really quick at what Zach Blodgett said about slopes. It was almost identical to what Kurt said about slopes on the prior application, so I was double checking. So for storm water and erosion control here for Townhill, these comments are from Zach Blodgett, who is one of the engineers for Department of Public Works. One, he has some concerns about two of the different sheets and he refers to them as 16 and 17. I'm guessing those are the page numbers from the original application. He didn't give me the reference drawing numbers, but he says that they're contained different and inconsistent information regarding existing and proposed contours and the on sheet 16, what appear to be proposed contours don't match or tie into the existing contours. It's difficult to understand exactly what exactly is being proposed for final grading, so that's one thing that they would like resolved in any final plan submitted. He also said that silt fence should be placed along the bottom contours and perpendicular to the runoff. Culvert outlet will need end treatment to comply with state bridge and road standards. Construction should comply with the state of Vermont low risk erosion handbook that I think is one of the things that is just pulled into our erosion control standards. Stabilized construction entrance should be required. Ditching may be required to connect the newly installed culvert to the downstream driveway culvert. Ditching would be the responsibility of the owner slash contractor. Zach has a question about how will the water that goes through the pervious driveway be conveyed in the stormwater system? Once the water infiltrates the driveway, how will it be managed? The runoff should stay within the property and not adversely impact the neighboring property. That's end of quote. I think we heard some discussion on that already, but I'm not sure if with revised details, if DPW might have some further back and forth on that or want additional items in the site plan. Again, as we've discussed before, that might be a condition of approval. Yeah, I think probably the best thing to do to resolve the questions. The drawings that I provided in the site plan that I developed was guidance that I provided to Don. Don's drawings are the site plan of record. So what I think the easiest way to manage this is to remove any site plans that I might have provided as part of the application to prevent any confusion. I think that's what's going on and just make sure that any details that I might have had that are missing from Don's plan make it onto his drawing package and then resubmit those. Yeah, it would be what we tend to call there's a final plan. So we can always have a condition where a final plan is submitted to me as the zoning administrator before your permit gets issued, but that's up to the board to figure out that condition. Do board members have any questions about those public works comments? I think I just wanted to highlight the inconsistency between the two plans. I mean, it looks like what we have here is a site survey that's been submitted to the record, but then we also have a grading plan that was done by Don Marsh that's maybe not from that same information. So I think that in the final plan is a very clear depiction on where the information is coming from and what's controlling. I think you already said that, but that's the crux of this slope thing and why we're here is that specific analysis in my view. Yeah. Do you mind if I speak to that just for a moment? Yeah, go ahead. That's a really good point. So American Survey, Rob, actually was the guy who shot the points. I took those points and that's what I developed these drawings from. I sent Don the same point file. So even though the contours come from the same data source, he's just showing two foot instead of one foot contours. Unfortunately, the software I have doesn't do a really good job of being able to show the original grade and the proposed grade on the same drawing, which is why I'm recommending redacting these from the submittal, these drawings that I provided, because I think it's just confusing to you and to other members of the public. So these would hold. Well, let's get specific about what drawings we mean. Are they labeled Mindy Wood Design, LLC, Barry? Correct. Okay. So that's drawing. It's labeled 100-B, site-existing slash proposed. Yeah, and 100-C. And 100-C titled Site-Erosion Control and Utilities. Meredith, can we do that? Can we just remove those from the record? I haven't done that before. I would, I think I would feel more comfortable just making sure that there is a final plan, because there are going to be some tweaks for additional, I mean, and I think that I can't remember for sure. I think 100-C might be the only one that shows the utility line. Is that right? Yeah. So I would need to work with Don to transfer the data that's not shown on his drawings, the utility lines, the flow of the culvert he has, but the drainage for the foundation, and also indicate that it is a pervious gravel drive as opposed to just gravel drive. I think just a final packet of plans that's been maybe approved by DBW before a permit is issued would probably be the best way to deal with that issue. Okay. That makes sense. That makes sense. And that's, we will, we will likely ask for that as a condition. Okay. Great. So I don't mean to keep putting it off. I do want to include the folks who are here to learn about this. So at this point, we've got a good overview. We've dived into the stormwater issues. And so I'd just like to pause and ask Mr. Higgins, Ms. Higgins, and the Frasiers as well, if they would like, if they could just let us know kind of what their area of, if they have areas with specific questions or if they're just sort of here to hear. So I'll go first with you, Mr. Higgins. Excuse me, Kate. Yeah. I don't know if you've, if we've sworn in the witnesses. Thank you, Kevin. I've sworn in the applicant, but not the other witnesses. So let's go ahead and do that for anyone who's going to speak on the application. If I could please have you raise your right hand. And even if you're just the neighbor with a comment or a question, that counts. So if I could, I'm on frozen visual. So I'm going to assume that hands are raised. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? I do. Great. Okay. Thank you, everybody. My video is on the fritz. Okay. So Mr. Higgins, and I think Mr. Higgins is there as well. Would you, would you like to say a couple of words about the things you have questions or concerns about? Yes. The only issue that I had was I was disappointed to see all the trees removed and they were removed right up to tight to the property lines. And I had no interest in removing any more trees, but Matt and I could get together and talk about it. Okay. That's it for me. Okay. Well, good. Thank you for being so patient in order, in order to share that. I'm, I'm, I'm pleased that you're willing to have a chat with future neighbor and, you know, see what might be possible and work for, for both of you. Great. So Bill or Anne Frazier. Anne, would you like to speak first? Sure. We have a 75 year old cape that's, I think, directly across. I was a little unclear, Matt, in the drawings. I'm wondering if your driveway is going to be right across from our driveway. So we're concerned about drainage and flooding and runoff and that's our biggest concern. Okay. If I could just add a couple of things. First of all, I didn't get just to say hi, Matt. Welcome to the neighborhood. And we are happy to see a house going in there. And also just want to say for the record that I'm here 100% as a neighbor at zero conversations with anybody involving the city concerning this, just someone will ask. So I want to be sure that was on the record. And, and I think that, you know, Anne really said it, but we've had a couple of really strong flooding events in our, in our area, including our neighbors really got there. Our neighbors right directly who will also are across the street. They're not here. Oh my gosh, in space. The Larson's.  So, you know, it is a steep hill. We want to see his project succeed. Absolutely. But we're definitely we're concerned that drainage doesn't come down, particularly with a paved driveway gushing right in. And I think a secondary concern, probably less acute is just site distance and turning, you know, if we're going to have driveways nearby. But I mean, that that is less of a concern. We got, you know, we all kind of eyeball each other anyway, and we each other around in the neighborhood. So that's not as big a deal, but definitely flooding and drainage is a huge issue, I think, just because of the slope and the location. That's all I think. Okay. Yeah. Thank you all for those comments. This might be the time to go back to one of the comments raised by Public Works regarding what happens once we've heard that it's not going to be a paved driveway, but a pervious driveway, so that the water can infiltrate. Matt, could you tell us a little bit about what what happens to the water once it infiltrates? Is it expected to flow through the ground through some sort of piping system, or does the ground act as a natural sponge for the water that comes in through the pervious driveway? Yeah, so it should, that area will be filled that comes from the excavation of the basement and the attached dwelling unit. So it's not going to be as compact as the glacial till that's on site. So it should have some measure or some ability to absorb pretty significant amount of water. It really, if we wanted to do a hydrological analysis of the site and look at, you know, 100 year flood events, I suppose that would be the, you know, the right approach from an engineering standpoint to look at the volume of water that, you know, would be expected to land in the area, and then how much is that gravel drive, like the volume required for that gravel drive to actually absorb all the flow. I can tell you just, I don't think it will absorb all of it. The hope is that anything that comes out of that driveway, it's going to leach through the soil, and then it's going to come out of the soil on that southern slope. And then it's going to end up in that, in the drainage to the nearby brook next to the road.  We're going to have the stumps removed, so that'll allow us to widen the ditch to some extent, which should allow more water to get captured. I think that, you know, what I can do with the site itself is limited, right? There's water that's flowing onto the site from adjacent sites from 45 and 126. So, you know, how much of that is actually captured on the site, it's really hard to say, but as much as possible, we want to minimize anything, any roof flows, anything that's landing on the roof of the house, we want to intercept that before it ends up in the ditch. And we don't want anything going onto Town Hill Road and sheeting across. So the asphalt drive will have, it will go down about five inches from the crown of the road to allow the water to exit either side and enter the culvert and then get redirected down towards Fraser brook. That's the intention. It depends on, you know, what kind of rain event we're talking about and we would, I lived in Montpelier a few years back and we were in the middle of the woods and our basement flooded just from the way that, you know, the way that the groundwater and the topography of that area was. So, I'll turn to board members now. We're doing the stormwater part, so let's just keep talking about it. Board members, based on what you've heard or taking a look at page, very good. Page is nine and 10 of our staff report, which is where we have erosion control and stormwater. Let's hear any DRB comments or questions about those criteria. This is Abby. I wonder if there's any issues with the culvert as well. But there's any adjustment the size of that? So that is a 15 inch culvert. It's, you know, I think it's the same size as the culvert that's at Hattie Town Hill Road. Again, we'd have to look at, you'd have to do hydrological analysis of the whole neighborhood really to know exactly what size culvert would be needed. That would require input from DPW because they're the ones that probably have data on flows recorded at any given time. I don't know how much that work has been done. I would just say I would encourage that to occur to get the DPW input on that. I live just for full disclosure, I live in this neighborhood as well. And the uptick in stormwater events is definitely real. And I think we need to be cautious and prepared in how this comes together. Right, thanks. I see that Rob is unmuted. Did you have a question as well, Rob? Yeah, I just, I think that, well, I think the applicant is some type of engineering and I think familiar with the process.  You think it's possible to have known that increase in flow off of the property through some sort of design of catchment and rain gardens and that type of thing? Is that something that's possible? It could be. Again, it's been 28 years since I took my class in hydrology. So, yeah, certainly I can look at, you know, 100-year rain events and see exactly how much and historical events and see how much water is expected. There's a lot of unknowns, right? So you don't know how pervious the existing glacial till is. I think one of the areas where I was looking at, if you look at the proposed footprint, the drawing from, from, let me see if I can zoom out. Here's, I can see the drawing number here, the EPSC plan and details that Don developed. In that, I'll call it the southeastern corner, that's where the bulk of the rainwater from the house, the roof is going to come off. So trying to capture that and prevent it from becoming, yeah, trying to capture that and prevent it from hitting that asphalt drive. The intention there is to try to plant, it's not going to be grass, right? We'll have bushes and larger plants that will hopefully have a larger root system to help reduce flows. And certainly we could, we could think about some kind of catchment right in that corner to minimize the flow off the roof. As far as the gravel drive, you know, that should make a pretty significant difference in the amount of runoff as it, you know, from today. I don't know if it will be less than what's currently on the site. I'd have to do a pretty detailed analysis and I'd need Don's help for that. It could take a few weeks to pull that together. And yeah, we're open to dig a hole. Sure. It seems like there is interest in a little more information about stormwater, particularly in this neighborhood. I don't know if I hear board members asking for a full-on analysis of the type you're describing or for you to bust out those books from a few years ago from your own classes. But I wonder if at least a conversation with DPW about what they know and learn about what's been going on in this neighborhood hydrologically and assuring that the 15-inch culvert is an appropriate size given changes in the development and in the frequency and intensity of storms. Which I know is in your interest as well. It is. My only concern about increasing the size of the culvert too much as if it's larger than the downstream culvert, you might actually exacerbate issues further down. So it's kind of a tricky problem to solve, right? It's all that on one property, it then becomes the neighbors that actually could create more of a problem. Because instead of restricting flow and causing ponding above the culvert, you're causing it to overrun the downstream culvert, in which case you could have it spreading onto the road. It is not, it is something that DPW needs to address, right? I just need to turn it to Kurt and see what he has to say, what the recommendations are. But whatever recommendation he has, I'll make any adjustments to the drawing as needed. Okay. All right, thanks. More on that later. Yeah, Claire. Yeah, I guess I just wanted to follow up on the, there's a, I don't know if it's a suggestion or it's something from the regulation that does specify that the Director of Public Works can require a storm water management plan be submitted. And I was just curious, Meredith, from your communication with them, it doesn't sound like that's what they've asked for now, but it may be that right now they just want more clarification. I was just curious if that once, if once they got clarification on the current grades and so forth, if this would be something that they may ask for and whether the Board can kind of request that that be a submittal to this application. The way that's phrased, I'm not sure the Board can require it. It's, I mean, right now what DPW is wanting is more information, more details, so that they can work out, I think, the finer points of how the storm water flows. And of course you asked me about, hold on one second. I mean, it's the management plans, I think that in some ways the storm water management plan because it's about details about culverts, ditches, brooks, all of that. Basically, in some ways, Zach's asking for that here because he's asking for more details. It may not come to the level of a management plan as would, you know, for the 25-year storm event, but they definitely are looking for more details at this point. But I don't see, I don't see a place here where the Board necessarily is the one who says, yes, we need this because whether or not you need that depends on the details on the site and the engineers at DPW, I think, are the best physician to know if it's been fully triggered for that. But that's how I see it. Does that answer your question, Claire? Yes, thank you. Good question and thank everybody for their patience. I'd rather do this thoroughly and have clarity for whoever needs it than have to have extra meetings. So, all right, if it pleases the Board, I'd like to move on from storm water and talk about steep slopes. Does that work for Board members? That's fine, Kate. Great, thanks. Okay, so my understanding is that when it comes to steep slopes, we're not talking about the movement of land to build the house and the accessory dwelling unit. We're talking about a little bit for the driveway to the west of the house and then also a ditch, which I'm looking to identify on the map. Could you tell us a little bit more about what is being done here that's creating steep slopes? If I could unmute myself, yeah. I'm going to share a screen again. It's okay, I do this all day. Okay, so the steep slopes are indicated in red. This is page 17 of the submittal and so there are really existing slopes that I think it was mentioned earlier. They're existing and they're part of the drainage really for that site. It does rise up quite steeply in the front here. There's a significant amount of rock that was placed on the upside slope of that property for slope stabilization and so the intention is not to remove any of that rock or if it is, we would place rock in the ditches here and here to help stabilize and also prevent erosion. Okay, so is it the construction of the driveway that the access point that is leading to the slopes being rebuilt? Is that why we're reviewing this under steep slopes? Forgive me if I missed it in stack of work. Maybe I could look to Meredith on that. Yeah, so I mean you have the driveway going in over what are currently steep slopes, right, and the culvert going in. There's also over there on the western side. There is some creation there of steep slopes to be able to make room for the right correct driveway curve here if I'm understanding this all correctly in my discussions with Matthew previously. So it's really tiny areas of these are the 30 percent slopes, 30 percent are greater slopes. The way the regulations are written when you're disturbing the steep slopes, which technically putting in the culvert and putting in the driveway is going to disturb these steep slopes even if they're maintained at the culvert and then there's a little bit of creation by regrading to get that driveway pushed over there. I mean there's definitely disturbing because if you have your line of disturbance the LOD line over that area to regrade it. So you said the steep slopes will be disturbed but they'll be maintained by the culvert. Questions from board members about the steep slopes? Could we go back to people view please? Bring not sure. Thanks. Thank you. Now that my video is working I want to enjoy it. Yeah questions from board members about steep slopes? I mean it's just that one spot right at the boundary line on the on the roadway. So I don't see that as being significant. Okay. It's less than 30 percent correct? The slopes being disturbed are over a grade of 30 percent. But I mean it's way less than 30 percent. For sure. Yeah. So I'm going to say I could do diligence and thanking you for your patience. I'm going to go through the criteria for steep slopes to make sure that we've thought through the pieces. Okay. Unless there's something to add. Go ahead Meredith. Yeah. Sorry. Do you want to go through the criteria or I do have one sentence from DPW on slopes? Do you want that in now or after? Let's do now please. Okay. So this is from again Zack Blodgett. The steep slopes in this location are fairly minimal and I don't see any issues as long as silt fence and other stormwater and erosion control best management practices are constructed and maintained appropriately. That's the end quote. Great. Thank you. That is helpful. So I'll be brief but thorough. The criteria for slopes have to do with and this is to ensure public safety minimize erosion potential and flooding potential avoid increased cost of providing services to remote areas. That's why we ask these questions. So does the project limit the amount of disturbance, the clearing of existing natural vegetation and impervious surface to minimize potential for erosion, stormwater, flooding and water quality impairment? I would say that as it pertains to those steep slopes, that's a yes. Does it create slopes deeper than 30 percent? I think that we heard there is a de minimis creation of slopes at the edge of the driveway. Preserved distinctive natural features and the general topography of the site. We heard that a lot of these are existing. They are a ditch. Ditches have people. Maintain or reduce the pre-existing rate and retain the pattern of stormwater runoff leaving the property. We've discussed that quite a bit. I think it at least maintains the existing rate and mimics the pattern of stormwater runoff leaving the property with some more discussion to be had. Produce the final grade that's compatible with the surrounding natural terrain. Create a harmonious transition between graded slopes and the natural terrain. Avoid creating continuous unbroken slopes or linear slopes. These all appear to be the case by the plan. Contour graded slopes by varying the slope increment to produce the final grade that undulates both vertically and horizontally. And vary cut and fill banks and terraces to produce a final grade that has visual interest and allows for naturalistic landscaping. Consider the use of retaining walls and terracing rather than cut and fill. Vary the pad elevation on sites with multiple structures not applicable. Provide roads and driveways that follow existing contours which we've seen. Compact building forms and multi-storey buildings to minimize footprint. Split or multi-level buildings that step up or down the slope which this design certainly does. I've gone through this quickly. Are there any questions from board members? Thank you. All right. I'd like to move on to the last couple things. I think we have a pretty good understanding of what we know, what we don't know about the steep slopes and the stormwater. If you wouldn't mind, we're going to move on to access and circulation in the driveway spacing. That begins on page 10 of the staff report. Meredith, what we're looking at here is they need to be 45 feet apart and they're 40 feet apart. Is that it? Yes. So you have a situation here. So if you go to, I want to pull this up so that people who are looking from at home and might not have pulled up the staff report can see, sorry, which way am I going? I'm going up. There's two nearby driveways. I'm sorry for the blurring, guys. So this is an estimate because we don't have the distances between the driveways on the site plan. So here's one existing driveway to the west. And so I'm estimating it's probably going to be about 40 feet from that driveway. It's also, it's going to be just over or around 45 feet, somewhere in the 44 or 45 feet from this other driveway because it's right in between the two. There's, I don't see any way for a new driveway on this existing site to be 45 feet or more from both of these driveways and also meet the driveway standards. When you're ready, I have some comments from Department of Public Works on this issue. But the crux of it is that the board has to approve a driveway, new driveway location in this district that is less than 45 feet from other existing driveways. Okay. And we're using the waiver provision for that. Is that right? This actually, yeah, this is a discretionary. There are very specific reasons, times when the board can approve this, but you don't, it's not a waiver per se. You don't have to use the waiver. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So let's hear the Public Works comments, please. Okay. So this is again from Zach Blodgett. Throat of the driveway needs to be between 12 and 24 feet in width and known dimensions are shown on the drawing. When used, when measured by the scale on the drawing, it is greater than the 24 foot maximum. So the driveway needs to be constructed per the state standards, VTrans B71. So maximum width needs to be 24 feet. Zach doesn't see any major issues with the proposed driveway location. While it doesn't quite meet the distance requirement, it appears to be a reasonable request for placement. It would be helpful if the site plan showed all driveways on both sides of the road on the site plan. So all the nearby adjacent driveways. Okay. Maybe I will turn to the applicant. I'll turn to you, Matt, and ask, what's your plan for how wide the driveway will be? Is that decided yet? Yeah. So the original drawing, I think, when I measured it out, was 25 feet. And that was just because I was doing this. So I've narrowed that significantly. It's 23, a little under 23, to allow for two cars. And I'm concerned about vehicles getting in and out of the the driveway and being able to turn around in there. So yeah. So the final drawing will show a narrower throat to the driveway. Okay. Okay. So that will be within the range of what's allowable. So we've heard 23 feet. Thank you. That's helpful. All right. Questions from, I will just let you know that we're, as a board, we're allowed to, we may reduce the spacing for residential driveways based on site and street conditions, which I think is what we're looking at here, to when it's not physically feasible to achieve and upon the applicant obtaining an access permit from the city or state. So those, that's what we need to consider before we say yes or different. Questions from board members about driveway spacing. Yeah, Claire. It's a question that I have on, it shows on these ortho photos of Meredith's reference and also on a couple of site plans. There looks to be some type of right-of-way on the uphill side. And I was curious, does that provide an access to another property and what the status of that is? Are you looking at that, what looks like a channel or alley between the two, their parcel lines, I guess, and then something between them? Correct. Okay. Does that mean anything on the map or is that just a mapping clue? Okay. Mr. Higgins is trying to make a comment. Oh, yes. I'm sorry, Mr. Higgins, please.  Yes. Yeah, that used to be a right-of-way to the upper field that connects to Main Street, but all the property owners along that right-of-way bought out that right-of-way, so it is no longer a right-of-way. The access sewer line comes down through there, but as far as it being used for any other purpose, it is no longer usable. Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful. Um, just yes, Meredith. Sorry. So when we pull that up on our parcel maps, it actually is linked to the city road, just to back up what Mr. Higgins said about it being part of the sewer right-of-way. I think it's considered city right-of-way at this point. Okay. The sewer line. Okay. That makes sense. Great. Great. Other questions about driveway spacing from board members? All right. Very good. We're going to move on, if it pleases the board. Why did I have that highlighted? I was going to talk about special use standards for the accessory dwelling unit, but I think it's determined that the ADU does comply with all of the requirements. The accessory dwelling unit, we haven't seen too, too many of these, so just everybody should know it doesn't count for density calculations. It's pretty much allowable by right in association with another home, even on a non-sinforming parcel, which this is. So are there any questions about the ADU? All right. Thanks for going through that in a very thorough way all together. Are there other questions from board members? Okay. So we've had a good conversation about stormwater. We have some questions. We have some options as a board. We can continue this hearing to our next meeting, which is two weeks from now, pending and use that time period to get additional information after consultation with public works. And what was the other thing we were going to? There's another consultation. There's mostly consultation with public works and making sure about the flows. If public works has information. The other option that we can exercise as a board is if the questions we have have been resolved well enough tonight and putting the answers to those questions on a final site plan would do the trick. We can close the hearing and consider this as a liberative session. But once we close the hearing, we can't take more evidence. So I'd like to ask, I'd like to have board members talk a little about whether we need more evidence to make a decision on this and what that evidence would be or whether we feel prepared to deliberate. I have a question. So minus the steep slopes and the driveway spacing, if it weren't for those two issues, would this have still come before the DRB? No. I would be working out these details with the applicant and Department of Public Works because that there's a more flexible timeframe for the administrative permits. But once an application has come in and is technically complete, we have a set schedule for getting here to the DRB. Right. Right. Right. So I want to rephrase what Rob said because I think it's important. Every project like this one has to meet stormwater requirements. We happen to have the opportunity to be looking at them tonight because there are two other things going on here. One having to do with driveway spacing, one having to do with steep slopes. So while this conversation is very valuable, I will note that this application is getting a little more scrutiny because of that. And these problems would be solved at the administrative level, were it not for these other also important issues. So I just want to be really clear about Rob's comment. Just on my two cents worth on this, I do think that this is important to get the water issue as nailed down as we possibly can. And if this was another site, I might be comfortable with just moving ahead with conditions and doing it with conditions. But I'm inclined to want to get more DPW input and continue this to the next meeting. Just for discussion. Okay. Thanks, Kevin. I have a question. Are we waiting for any DPW input on the steep slopes or the driveway spacing? Or is it just for the stormwater? I believe it's just stormwater. Is that right, Meredith? Um, well, I mean, that's if you feel like you have enough comments from them on those other two issues, then yes, I mean, I, that that's sort of your call in a way, I would feel comfortable with getting, you know, if this would be administrative permit, I'd want a revised site plan with the modified driveway dimensions on it and make sure DPW approved that. I wouldn't ask for more on the steep slopes. Because DPWs approve that they like the information they got. You know, it would need to be clarity on those existing and proposed contours, but that has to do with the stormwater and erosion control, not the steep slopes criteria. Okay. Thank you. I kind of feel like the, if, if the steep slopes were a major component of the stormwater issue, I could see there being a need to kind of follow through on that, but it seems like I guess deferring to DPW on the stormwater issue is, is very much kind of within their purview. And I don't know what I would kind of add to DPW's expertise on that component. I do think it is a very important component and feel like it should be, you know, very much kind of considered and ensured that it is managed, you know, adequately. Also feel like, like I mentioned, that I feel confident that that is something that can be addressed by DPW. Thank you all. For the board members, I keep unmuted Abby and Jean. Abby? Yeah, this is, this is difficult. It's helpful for you, Rob and Kate to kind of frame the issues before this board. I'm wondering kind of what is, what is lost in just continuing the hearing and allowing to hear more from DPW, including, including the site plan on the driveway and the stormwater? What is, you know, what is the harm in doing that? And perhaps for you, the harm is just a two week delay. But to me, that does feel like the most prudent thing to do. And just so that we know what we, oh, sorry, go ahead, Jean. Oh, yeah, I just, I personally feel the same. I mean, I'd like to see some additional details on those stormwater plans and the driveway development. Okay. So there are a couple things going on with driveway development. One is that the width of it, and I think we can probably all imagine what a narrower or wider width would look like. We're probably not needing to wait two weeks on that. But when we say details on the stormwater plan, we talked about the sufficiency of the culvert, what other details are folks interested in knowing? Because I want to confirm before we ask that, that those, that we're going to get real information that is going to help us make a decision that's better than what we could make today. So stormwater details that we're interested in our sufficiency of the culvert. Also, the onsite flow of the water. Okay. Having to do with once the water goes into the impervious surface. I mean, what we need is a positive finding that in fact, that's what it'll do. I mean, that's what the testimony from the applicant is, but we need some verification of that. And I'm sorry to belabor this, but are we seeking verification from the applicant's engineer? Are we seeking verification from DPW? Yeah, I'm not, I'm not saying it should be DPW or the engineer. That can come from multiple or a single, a single source, but something to give us to be able to flesh out the water transmission as we have been presented with it today. Maybe what we're talking about is staff report is 2009 C sort of provides a description of you know, the types of things we're looking for onsite, which is I can read it to focus things and that this subsection also requires the best available technology be used to, among other things, minimize stormwater, increase onsite infiltration, encourage natural filtration functions, simulate natural drainage systems further low points and standing water should be avoided unless specifically designed. Not the last part, but I think that there's, you know, encouragement of some creativity here for onsite drainage. Okay, so it sounds like while it while acknowledging that we've seen some thoughtful design here with the roof with the rain garden on the south end of the house, recognition of the upper existing retention pond, the pervious surface for the driveway, we've heard all of that. We feel that we need additional evidence to assure that 3,009 B is met. Stormwater drainage shall not negatively affect adjacent properties and we want to understand better as well. 3,009 C types of drainage systems. That's that, I'm sorry that's it. Yes, 3,009 C. Yeah, we do. Yeah, that's part of it. I have my finger on that one. Okay, you have your finger on it. All right. Okay, so maybe board members are nodding and Joe, if I could put you on the spot, I will just do that to ask you, do you have any questions or anything to add on this issue since we've heard from the others? I don't have any questions for the applicant, no. Any questions for me? I'm a little curious what exactly we're all looking for here. That can did outline where the footing drains are going to be, although it'd be nice to see them on a set of plans. But what I'm wondering is, what really are, is this just a judgment call on our, you know, things like the culvert size and things like that, you know, there's, I'm not sure why we want to know that, I guess, is what I'm saying. I understand that overall we want to make sure that the site doesn't impact other adjacent properties, but seeing as this would not even be before the board, if it wasn't for the driveways and the extremely minimal steep slopes, how would this all be taken care of if the driveways and steep slopes weren't an issue and this wasn't before the board? That's a fair question and we're getting deep into process, but I think it's good to be transparent about why we're doing what we're doing. So again, thank you folks for their patience. I think that's a good and fair question. I would like to just briefly respond, Joe. I think that, you know, by the fact that it is before us, regardless of how it got there, it then becomes our purview to look at the full range of criteria that are being analyzed here. So even though it wasn't storm water that got us there, we can now take storm water and address it. Okay. I understand that. I guess the only question was- I think it's a significant issue. I mean, I think we make judgment calls all the time and this is just one of those cases where, you know, personally, I feel it's appropriate. I agree. That's a significant issue. I think storm water management is probably the most important part of site design. What I'm wondering is if it wasn't before the board, what is the process for- there's a permitting process I know that goes through the state and I'm assuming there's something for the town as well. Do you want me to speak to that, Kate? Yes, please. So, you know, as to the state permit requirements, there's specific standards for that and the single- as far as I know, a single family home and a partial of this size isn't going to trigger that. That's not my area of expertise. For storm water here in the city, if it's not something that goes to the Development Review Board, if it's an administrative permit, where there are changes being made to the grade or new impervious surface being added, we look at it here in the office and we coordinate with the Department of Public Works and we pretty much always wait for DPW sign off and part of that is because one, they're the experts, but also they manage any city storm water permits. The city has several storm water, state storm water permits for different areas, different neighborhoods of the city, often associated with streets that they have redone and that links all into part of the Lake Champlain watershed. So, there are even instances where an application that does not require a zoning permit, we still actually need to flag it for the Department of Public Works if it increases impervious cover on a parcel that is associated with one of those state storm water permits. But in general, we wait for DPW sign off. In this instance, we don't have it yet because they wanted some more clarity on how storm water is being dealt with. As has been discussed here and highlighted by Kevin, the way Montpelier works, once part of an application triggers DRB review, the whole thing goes before you. I can lay out my staff report, what I would conclude based on my review of the provisions that would normally don't trigger DRB review, but it all comes down to you. And so, instead of basically one mind in DPW, it's seven. So, really the whole thing is in your court, ultimately. Okay. So, we can bypass the normal process by approving this? Is that what you're saying? I don't want to say you're bypassing the normal process because at this point, I would be going to DPW to get more information. And if DPW says, well, we can make suggestions, but the applicant needs to get an engineer to show us what it's really going to look like because DPW isn't going to redraw the site for them. Then there's some back and forth. DPW can push back on somebody saying, nope, you need an engineer to show me what you're doing. It's the same process. You're just standing in what would normally be my shoes. Okay. It's just to fill in there. That's why there's seven of us. So, here's what I'm going to propose given what we've heard. I've listened to who on the board is interested in more information and who thinks we could probably proceed and we're about split. But as I said, there's seven of us. That's not an even number. We do not have approval from DPW as we might normally have and we have heard from some concerns about the neighborhood at large. So, I am going to propose that we do continue this hearing to a time and date certain in order to obtain additional information about stormwater and DPW sign off. That's not a motion. It's just an idea. It could turn into a motion if others agree. A motion to continue the hearing to allow applicants to provide those details. I just have one quick question for the applicant in that case. Joe, let's get a second and then have discussion of the motion or no, I'm sorry. Process wise, would you withdraw your motion, Jean? Thank you. Joe, please go ahead. Thanks. Matt, I just wanted to ask what the two-week delay would do to your project. I'm just curious if it's no issue at all or if it is an issue? Well, yes, but probably not a huge issue because I won't be able to start digging holes until June anyway because the ability to get a hold of people. I think the biggest issue for me is I'm paying people for work that I'm not sure if I'm actually going to be able to do because I need to line them up and get them in a schedule and get them in a block of time and it's risky to pay somebody an upfront fee to hold their time and then not know if you're going to actually have approval by then. I think my biggest concern is I've scheduled them for June thinking we might be able to get a permit before then. There's strong likelihood, but with another two-week delay, there's risk that the time that they're scheduled to come in there now, I would have to tell them they can't because we don't actually have the permit and then I have to reschedule which would likely lead to another month delay at which point we wouldn't be finished construction until probably November, which makes things tricky. So yeah, it's tight as it is. I was hoping to have all this stuff done in March, but it takes time to get responses from DBW. It takes time to get engineers to develop drawings for you. I don't even know if I could get those drawings revised knowing Don's schedule and the two-week time frame and I think what I would ask the board is to be as specific as possible in exactly what it is that you're looking for on the site plan that would ameliorate any kinds of concerns you have with stormwater because it is a very, very complex problem and is not something that it's something you could spend a lot of time or you could take industry best practice and apply it, which is what I've generally tried to do is apply best practice, but a detailed analysis is not something that would happen. It basically would shelve the project for this year in all likelihood. Matt, thanks for such a candid response about how to expect you and what you are doing. So backing up in my notes a little here, the stormwater details that we're looking for have to do with the sufficiency of the culvert. DPWs look at that. A better understanding of onsite flows of water that we are not asking for a full-on hydrologic analysis and ultimately something that would not necessarily, may or may not need to be done with the engineers as a sign off from DPW. And Maris, do you think DPW can get the applicant and the board information before the next meeting, because it's also hard to receive the information at the meeting? Yeah, I think they can. Okay. And I would be pressing them for that. Okay. Thank you. That would be very supportive and helpful. I know they do their best. All right. Any other questions from board members? Okay. Is there a motion? Jean, do you want to make your motion again? I was just reading. I'm reading on this one. So, yes, we'll motion to continue the hearing weeks. Who are May 17th meeting? Correct. Okay. Is there a second? So moved. Second from Kevin. I will call the roll. Rob? Yes. Abby? Yes. Joe? No. Jean? Yes. No. Kevin? Yes. I vote yes. The motion carries to table this to our next and continue discussion. It will be the first item on the agenda at our next meeting. Okay. I hear Matt's request for as much specificity as possible on what needs to go on the site plan, so there's no need to go back and do this two or three times to make efficient use of time. So, we talked about the drain footings. We talked about the driveway width. And Meredith, could I rely on you to provide notes on other items that need to go onto the site plan? Yes. For sure. Okay. Thank you very, very much. All right, folks. That concludes, unless there are any final comments or questions about what's next, that concludes our discussion of this application. And Matt, any last questions? I'll be happy to try and answer. I think the one comment from Department of Public Works relating to the footing drains, those are all very simple problems to solve. The hardest problem to solve is how the drainage gets treated from the gravel drive. But I'll speak to Don and see what creative ideas he has and try to apply them to the drawing in a way that shows them accurately and shows that drainage being diverted to the ditch. Sounds great. And perhaps your answer is going to be that the soil is such that it's infiltrating. I think it's just a matter of knowing a bit more about how much is going where for the sake of board, which we very much appreciate. Thank you. All right. Moving on to the next item in our agenda is other business. Our next meeting is May 17th. Same time, the clock. We'll discuss this more. And Meredith, do you know if there's anything else on the agenda for that meeting? Yes, there is. There's another application. Okay. Very good. All right. Any other announcements, Meredith? So I want to make, this is really for the board and something for you to think about. You don't need to discuss this now. The city is considering moving towards the possibility of in-person meetings, looking at beginning of July potentially, maybe the first or second meeting. My understanding is that boards and committees may have the option of choosing whether to go fully in-person or do a hybrid model where the board members, if they so choose, would probably be attending from home. But we would need to, by July, we will need to at least provide staffing in the council chambers itself with that open to the public to be able to come in and participate over Zoom. We haven't figured out all the details of how a hybrid would work. Or even if we go in-person, there may still be options for Zoom access, given that for some people, Zoom access has made it a lot easier for them to attend hearings. So there's a lot of details to work out. But it's something for the board to think about and for individual members to think about. And feel free to shoot me emails with your thoughts on how you would feel comfortable starting in July potentially with in-person meetings. So maybe at our next... I was just going to say, thank you, Meredith. That's great news. It's wonderful that we're actually moving into the next phase of this unusual event. Yeah. So might I propose that we hear an update from Meredith at our next meeting, at the end of our next meeting, on any further details about what that reopening would look like, and then maybe put on our first June meeting an agenda item for discussion when board members can share, if they wish, their preferences. And we can also invite public feedback on what sort of model works, whether the Zoom model is a valuable thing to maintain in some way, because I can see how it would be. Yes. Great. All right. Is there a motion to adjourn the public meeting into executive session? So moved. Motion by Abby. Second. Second from Joe. I will call the roll. Rob? Yes. Abby? Yes. Joe? Yes. Gene? Yes. Claire? Yes. Kevin? Yes. And I vote yes as well. The motion passes unanimously. The meeting is adjourned. Let's reconvene in the executive session link, or deliberative session. I'm sorry, we call it deliberative session in five minutes. Oh, yes. Meredith? I haven't censored on the link yet. Sorry, I got distracted. There are too many things going on today, because I have to wait till I see who's on to send it out. So maybe give me 10 minutes so that I can actually set up a meeting. Yes, that's fine, Meredith. 10 minutes for the DRB, and thank you everyone else who attended. Matt, thank you very much. Oh, thank you. Thank you. All righty. Have a good night. See you in 10. Bye-bye.