Hannah Smith, Eric Hilbertson, Steven Everett, Benjamin Cheney, anybody who's not been here before, we are advisory to the development review board. We will listen to the applications and move them forward. We will be administrative approval for the next development review. The first application, 15 Berry Street. I recuse myself from this. Go ahead and close the papers. No significant changes other than from last time we spoke except for the ramp, which this is all the old stuff. So basically I've been working with mostly Chris Lombra in an effort to get this ramp on this building. And so major, you know, basically coming from the left of the stairs, running out to the road. Yeah, it would be below the windows. I shouldn't have drawn those windows in. That's a great point, Seth. But it will run basically in this photograph from the stairs. It would run from here out to Berry Street. It's going to use the existing, well, we're going to tune up the existing stairs, but everything existing stays. Yeah, if you look at it in plan from somewhere in one of these drawings, you can see it's kind of got a little jog in it. So you would come up the ramp and then it kind of wiggles to the right and then left onto the platform. Trying to keep the ramp as tight to the building as possible, but that project out to get onto that sort of landing that those stairs come up requires a little wiggle. Uncovered ramp. Chris seems fine with this. I guess there will still be three spaces kind of right in front of that. One of those could be designated as a handicap spot. Nobody's brought that up, but I don't see why that couldn't be created. Does the existing, this overhang and all that stays exactly the same. Bush goes. That vent moves a little bit. I'm not entirely certain what it is. Yeah, it's got to move. So clearly it's concrete up to here and then it's likely just a pressure treated wooden deck. Concrete from, there's like a nine feet of concrete that comes from the sidewalk, using the sidewalk as a sort of like a level place from which to take off on the wheelchair. And then it comes up nine, ten feet, creates the sort of foundation for the ramp to take off from. And then the ramp will pitch up and likely be supported mid span with one helical anchor. Chris, these drawings, yeah, these all went through Chris and this is what he seemed to... The ramp doesn't exceed one film pitch. Well this is a good question. It does actually. But close enough. We went, yeah, in an effort to sort of say, okay, we're doing our absolute best to make this work and there's no other place to go. Yes, the concrete should be a section that shows that. I guess the best we're going to see it is, maybe in this, yeah, is it pitches up. It's level as it comes off from the sidewalk, pitches up for five, six feet in this level. Yeah, you can see it there, yeah. And then so is that it's less than 30 feet from level to level, just barely, to be able to meet that requirement, that 88 requirement. So far there's no proposal for that. I mean there is existing a whole bunch of like Christmas lights that run around there that they use. They seem fine with that, but if they get into it, I guess we would come back and ask for more if they felt like they wanted more. But at the moment nobody's requested any more exterior lighting. Yeah, that's a good thought, yeah. Yeah, so we're below, at this point it's less than 30 inches from ground, so the idea was just less stuff. So that we needed the barrier, the four inch barrier to get us down below 30 inches. Does that make sense? There is a tow kick on here to prevent the wheelchair from slipping off, yes. But it was not seemingly not required to have, you could still pass through there. As far as the child's kind of falling over the cliff, there's been zero discussion about that. Not nobody has mentioned any concern about that. Yeah, I think we'll probably have to do something like that. They don't intend to get in there very often or ever, but I think it would be foolish not to make it possible. When and if, or when and when. No, that bulkhead is buried. Quick question, just as an amateur, did they ever move the sign down below those windows that they had applied for? This photograph I took three weeks ago, maybe even two weeks ago. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The other thing looks a little awkward. Obviously they don't want to come back for any other kind of comment. There are some lights there, yeah.  I bet they are there for the parking lot. Although I was curious about what you were talking about. Lose at least, I think they'll lose one. That's why I tried to keep the ramp over the green there except for that little jog there. And in that jog space was a place where one car would go. So I think they, I mean it's awkward parking there anyhow. People do park there, but it is awkward. The ramp is not going to make it radically more awkward. Does the stair railings really exist? Yeah, they probably will.  So if they're looking really shabby they'll get maybe a place to go. Yeah. Don't know, I have no, so I mean I'm not able to speak very much for the, for buddies. If I haven't had basically any communication with the buddies people, they're sort of excited for this project but are waiting to see that it could actually happen before they're really getting too far ahead. So I can't, as far as how the restaurant is going to interact with any of this, I don't have any. This is a project that may not even happen this year. It's more of a just sort of like what's the feasibility and can we do this? That would be great. Right, that's been, yeah. Yeah, we would have to dive into that to see what's going on there. In the event that they elect to put up an autumn, but I think it's nice to say hey, do you want to do this? Mm-hmm. Yeah, seems inevitable. I will say it is nice. I think that the Tom McCartle has made it an effort to allow, to help with the city sidewalk which is far from compliance to be able to put in the wheelchair ramp and some little bit of flexibility on the one quarter inch per foot. Making it to get the old building that was never designed to have a ramp. Do I get this one? Thank you. Thank you. That was my understanding from Audra. My brother is out of town. I'm Richard Powell. He left me a couple of notes that I'll read for the committee. May I proceed? Go ahead. All right. Paint boarder fence. Karen, meaning Karen Blossom's fence along the driveway is painted on her side, but not mine. It is, according to my brother, a motley mess which I took care of which I look out in my kitchen. I've chosen a very dull greenish gray that lets the fence disappear to the degree that it will and lets me focus on the pretty hill behind it. Karen has given me permission. There are two photos and two paintouts of the color and package that I submitted. Should I hold on that topic before I proceed to the next? Two install stove pipe to the near first floor wall. I'm installing a wood stove in my rear northwest first floor room. I have gotten bids from two local companies and include in my package the one that best describes what they will use and do. It will basically be designed to code. The package includes a plan to show the location and two annotated photos. I believe it is. I don't know. As you may know, my brother is an expert in historic preservation and has worked on a lot of old buildings including Mount Vernon and the Treasury Building. He won't mess it up, sir. Right here. Thank you very much. That's it. Appreciate it. Thank you. And if you're trying to get to sleep some night and can't, catch my brother on the History Channel's History of Paint. You have an application for Paint Lancet Street, Andy Brewer, and Bobby Rohn. Both sides. Well, so do you have the documents? Are they all sent? Yes. So it's an oval sign and it's going to be flat and with the colors on it of the logo. It's going to be lighted from both sides. So with two little light fixtures which are there attached to the bracket. I mean, I'm not here to talk about that, but yeah. But I think other signs on the street are lighted, so I didn't see any problem with that. My neighbor across the street has lights on her sign. Oh, thank you. There is a typo on the sign. We caught that and we fixed it. So adventurous isn't spelled correctly. But we did catch that and we will fix that. It won't be spelled that way on the sign. Yes, the graphic designer was horrified when we caught that. I don't have a photograph, but it's right next to the doorway. So the doorway is here and it's right on the... I don't think I have a photograph. Let me check my photos because I might actually. I do have a couple photos of the building straight on. I wish I could find one. There was for the shoehorn. The shoehorn had a sign there. So we're taking down the existing bracket because it's a little short. That sign was a circle and ours is going to be an oval. And it also didn't have lights on it. So here's a better picture of where it is. And there's another picture if you slide this way. I'm sorry. So there's the sign right there. And then there's another picture of the sign. You just don't know the arm would or sit on it. Arm would? I mean we proposed just to put the sign where the other bracket is. Unless there's a reason not to put it there. There's a base. There's a base. Yeah, we haven't ordered that yet. So we can look at that and see if it's much smaller. I understand what you're saying. We're forcing out the horizontal. Yes. Remember the sign. But that's going to be wind and snow and weather. Yes. We can actually put it on board. I agree. I didn't look at that. And I don't think the designer did either. But we can go back to the drawing board on the bracket. You still have the original bracket. It's still there. It's still there. Yeah. Okay. Take a picture of that. So you can show the designer. Mm-hmm. At a time. It's a measurement. So you can see. Yeah. If they can do this. You can go to the student bracket. Yes. Especially if it's not. I agree. I think you're right. Yes. I can do that. I think this probably would work. Minus the fact that your plate pendant is a 6 inch by 6 inch plate. It's supposed to be mounted to the building. That piece of wood is 6 inch by. So I think you would be missing. That's a good point too. Yeah. I think your plate would be wider than that piece of wood. Is it fabricated or something? No. No. He was going to order. Well, I mean the sign maker is someone local. But he was going to order the bracket. Okay. So we haven't ordered the bracket yet. Measure. Yeah. See where it exists. Mm-hmm. You're right. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. I will do that. For sure. Congratulations on opening the store. Thank you. The sign in the street comes alive. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. It's been really fun. It's been, this is week three. And everybody that comes in is like just happy that we're reopened. LED I believe. Yeah. But I'll double check that as well. I do have the sign, the light specs on my phone. So let me just check here. LED. Good. There's specs on the lights here. Okay. Yeah. Okay. I agree with that. Okay. Although it's going to look like that. But if we're going to change the bracket, you know, because that bracket won't work, I'll have to probably come back, right? No. With the new bracket. No? Okay. No. Okay. What I think is nice about this bracket that might not work as well with the brackets there is that this is a tube which will contain the wires inside. Yes. Right. To the lighting. Whereas the other bracket that's existing there is solid. So you don't have the ability to run the wires through the tube. Right. So. I'm certain. Yeah. Well, I mean, I think the main piece holding up the sign on the existing piece of solid probably three-eighths by two. And so what's nice is this one allows the wires to be inside the two-eighths of square tube. Yeah. Yeah. That I think is even a thin, just a thin piece of metal. Yeah. That's what I'm saying. Twisted, not even a tube. Right. That's what I'm saying. That's a solid. That this piece is the tube. Right. Right. That bracket that can fabricate the tube, the bracket. Oh, yeah. Yeah. All I guess I was saying is in considering your, I like your bracket choice here. Mm-hmm. If you're going to put wiring on it. Yeah. Because it contains the wires in the back. So you can continually be a bracket search that will work. Mm-hmm. For this situation. Mm-hmm. That's a nice direction. A little cleaner. Yes. We're considering now. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Okay. It looks. Yeah. I think from the picture, from the drawing, let me just see if we can tell. I don't know. I'd have to find out. It does only here, but it's a drawing. So it doesn't really show what that is that connects. I will have to, I have to check. Do bracket ring. Wire ring. Yeah. One is through wiring hole. Oh, that's the wiring through the middle. That's a bracket ring. Yeah. So I think. It's providing a ring. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Because it looks like that. I think all of that is not going to be able to swing. If your light's been further out, but it blows hard enough. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Towards the end. Mm-hmm. You have a top view too. They did provide a top view of that signed bracket. Side view. Yeah. Side view of lighted. So the lights are pretty. It looks like the lights are pretty far away. I'm not sure they fell out with that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Right. Right. This, this side view shows that too. Mm-hmm. Yes. On top of the page. Yes. So there's no doubt that the diagonal breaks would make it substantially stronger. I do think that probably this is a professional sign. Should I do it as well? I should. I should. Yeah, go to the back. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for the place and sort of was considering what it would mean to make like basically What does it mean to make basically like a role in the Golden Board kind of thing? I spoke with John a little bit about it, that could live in his awesome little museum. He could have photographs of historical buildings in the museum, those sort of things that have changed in why I started for the race. And so my sort of proposal is that if we can generate something like this that would live in the museum and then we can roll it out and be in here for meetings, when it comes to the museum it sort of seems like what? Yeah, exactly. It has really good discussions about getting public information out there from your dad. Yes, he and I have been discussing this. I will be otherwise engaged. But I did have a brief conversation with Jamie Duggan about it. Yeah. Do you think I'll send anybody from the audience anything that would ask for offer? Okay. Good evening everyone. I'll call this meeting to order of the City of Montpelier Development Review Board. My name is Daniel Richardson. I am the vice chair acting as the chair this evening. The other board members from my right are? Kevin O'Connell. And both staff. Kate McCarthy. Ryan Kane. Will Shebo. And we have to identify the five voting members. That is easy this evening. It is all five plus. We'll be voting on the applications tonight. I'll be accusing myself from number nine, one, two, three, four. That is pretty obvious given that you are the applicant. But that will still preserve the quorum that we have. Just for those inquiring, we are still working under, I think this may be the last meeting depending on how fast the governor acts under the current charter that requires five members of the DRV even though we have seven. It is a charter change that has gone through the legislature that will push our numbers back up to the full seven that we used to enjoy. But at the beginning of every meeting we try to identify which five we're going to be voting on a particular application. Next item of business is approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda is printed or a suggestion for an addition or change? Mr. Chair, I move we adopt approve the agenda as printed. A motion to approve by Kate, do I have a second? Second. Second by Kevin. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of the agenda is printed. Raise your right hand. We have an agenda. The only comments from the chair is just a warm welcome to our new zoning administrator Meredith who this is your first meeting chairing the, I mean staffing the meeting. Thank you very much. Welcome. Happy to be here. Good. The May 7th minutes cannot be approved because we lack a quorum. So we'll move straight into 170 spring hollow lane. Our first application for the evening, which is a final plan review for a two lot subdivision. This plan did come before us before as a sketch plan review. Don set up. Yes, I can. Plus the same as what we have here on the list. If you'll state your names for the record. Don Marshall. Okay. If you raise your right hand. I'll swear you in. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration? She'll be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under a pain to come of ease at her jury. Yes. Very much. So, Don, you want to walk us through any changes from last time? Yes. It's a, you want some of the, both lots are approximately two acres. The only real change is we've brought the building envelope back to avoid all the areas greater than 30% slope. And in discussion with both the applicant and DBW, we decided to widen. We had originally a 20 foot wide finger that goes out to spring hollow lane. And we bought that up to 25. And we've had discussions with DBW and so we've added some notes that reflect their comments. We've reduced actually the driveway to a 12 foot driveway, which they thought was fine. We've noted the location of some water infrastructure that will have to be relocated in front of the drive work. And we've noted that we'll put a surface water diversion swale on the up slope side of the road, the driveway. And then that flow will go around spring hollow lane and then go generally northward to a cross culvert under spring hollow. And DBW wants us to be able to clean out their ditch so that it flows properly, unless they get through it first. And that's where the flow wants to go, but the ditch is sort of filled in as they do over time. I believe we've added the neighbor's house that wasn't on the sketch plan that was requested before, but that's we've added it. And we talked, I think, one of the things before, I think now with the 12 foot driveway with 25 foot wide right of way, snow would just go off, shed off to either side. And actually it's not a right way, it's actually the lot. One question I had, and this is going back in refreshing my memory from last time. Is this the only lot on that circle or the street that's likely to have this long, narrow tongue of land? Or are there other similarly situated lots of this nature? There are a number of lots in the grand field. If you go up through here, these lots, for instance, there are five or six lots that were part of that, I think, in 1939 and then again, 1973 subdivision. Five, rather. And various owners here on Spring Hollow have purchased those. So there are similar situations. And then it goes almost up to Sean Sholdice's property at 178 Grandview Terrace. She's the last one on the left as you come down that part of Grandview Terrace. So those lots start behind the houses along Spring Hollow Lane. Those old lots that were acquired and generally are part of existing lots along Spring Hollow. So there's a possibility down the road there'd be other of these sort of subdivisions? I think it's possible, yes. I'm just, one of the things we have to review later on is the character of the neighborhood. Looking just curious if this is, I mean, I think this is consistent. It's a residential development within a residential neighborhood. But just wondering if it would, is this sort of an anomaly? Or is this the first in a series of these type of sort of back lane developments or back field development? Which answer helps our case? Mr. Chair, we did, I thought I heard from the applicant. The other lots are smaller than this lot. The one immediately next to the kitchens is very steep. It's not likely to be suitable like this one is because this one opens up. I think maybe there's two lots up above, not five or six, familiar with the survey. Could happen. Because once you get up a little higher, the access is then from the back side from Westview rather than from Spring Hollow. My understanding was that Westview hadn't been within the development. That's correct. The right-of-way appears on the old flat, but it was never built. But unless somebody actually put that in, they would still have to have creation of additional flag loss like this to be able to get to a current for some sort, right? Only for two of them because once you go further up towards Grandview, then you actually come to Grandview so then you could access off of Grandview. So where does this, I'm just a little confused as to exactly where the location is. I know we're Grandview terraces and that's at a horseshoe configuration to Town Hill Road. So where does Spring Hollow lane get to the bottom of Grandview? Bottom which bottom? I mean, it's two bottoms. Well, the very bottom. Let's say we're starting up the hill on the eastern edge of Grandview. Right. You come down and just as you start to turn along that bottom loop, Spring Hollow drops off to the left. So it goes straight down from the bottom of Grandview. Okay, I'm with you. I've got it located in my mind now. Three or four houses on the left there? Yes. So before you get to the cul-de-sac. Then there's a little cul-de-sac at the bottom of Spring Hollow with three houses on it. So there would be no flag lots, so to speak, off of that little circle at the bottom? Because Grandview is all pretty much developed, right? Yeah. Still trying to piece it together in my mind, but I think I'm getting there. Okay. Mr. Chair, responding to your earlier comment about sort of the unique situation with the lots behind the lots that had been acquired over the years. I had the same question the last time we looked at this and I think where we landed as a group is that it's an interesting question. It could happen, but we are without means to evaluate those impacts given that they have not been proposed. But it does raise that question of how do we measure and understand incremental changes to the character of the neighborhood and what is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back of character? So excellent, good question. I have the same one. I don't have an answer though. I think it's just helpful to understand and looking at the last map in our packet, I noticed that it looks like Sean Scholdeis, our second class, looks like he has title to the majority of the year, but then it looks like there's the stones and the smiths have these sort of hammer possibly put down the line. At the same time, at least my initial, and I don't want to speak for the rest of it, I mean this is developing a large residential tract of land, the one oddity about it. But it also doesn't look like there are, I mean it looks like there's a possibility that going forward there could be more of these, but it also doesn't look like all that inconsistent. I mean this is a cul-de-sac. I would just say I think it's really clear that the ordinance anticipated that and it does have the provision that doesn't seem to allow it without, I mean it needs your approval, but it doesn't sound like it's a conditional approval. I mean it seems, it reads fairly straightforward. And that actually brings us to the next, I think under a general standard, and this is RES-24 frontage require 75 feet, 25 feet of frontage. Now you've bumped it up to 25 feet that leads to the minimum, but we have to approve the reduction. Does anyone have any problem with that, or want to explore any particular questions in regards to this? Not really, I mean is there a reason why you couldn't have a, I appreciate, and I wasn't here for the sketch plan, so I appreciated that it went from 20 to 25, is there a reason it couldn't be wider? Is it sent back to the house? Is it because it's unnecessary? It could physically be, I mean we have 65 feet remaining, and the side yard setback is one, I think only 15, but there are big lots and it wouldn't seem to make sense to crowd it up to make it, I don't know that it accomplishes anything by making any more, I mean you could do 30 or 40 feet or 50 even, but I'm not sure it adds anything because people aren't going to use that as a frontage or a lawn or anything, I mean it makes sense that it's a drive out to a secluded lot. I guess my understanding of this cold sector is fairly wooded down there, correct? Yes, the land both through which this tongue, if you will, goes through is all wooded and the parcel itself is all wooded, exactly, it wouldn't make, I mean the whole attraction of this lot, I mean one is it's large, it's nearly two and a half times the requirement, but it's a nice secluded lot, it can with some opening up that you can get a view and some solar exposure, but it's clearly not intended to be sort of an on-street lot. If you noted you're building envelope away from the slopes that are unlikely to be buildable, obviously the active subdivision itself doesn't disturb soils or interact with slopes, but I think the map that you've driven, the revised map that you've submitted touches upon those areas and obviously that's a limitation in any development down the road, but given that it appears that your building envelope is more than sufficient for building. Just looking at this, are there any other questions from the board? So, yes? This pertains to something on pages seven and eight of the staff report, and it has to do with the distance between Nishiyachi's driveway and the proposed driveway, and I was wondering if you had that measurement between the two driveways? It's estimated by staff at 50 feet, which I think would exceed the 45 foot minimum requirement, but do you have an actual number? Between the neighborhood down below? Yep, another diagram. I think, I know they said that it was 45, but I think it's, frankly, I want to say it's, if you bear with me, I think it's closer to 10 or 15 feet. Yeah, I think the driveways are going to be more 30 to 35 feet apart. 30 to 35 feet apart? Yeah, I don't think we'll meet the 45. Okay. Just because this is the, we think this is part of it, it puts it next to the La Line, which makes sense from a, not going through the middle of the existing Amanda's house. The other is it follows an old wood road, so it's partially cleared. So the clearing is minimized by that. There's also a line of trees between the Nishiyachi house left of their driveway with a visual barrier.  There's a barrier, there's a buffer there on the trees. So there at the bottom of page seven, we couldn't estimate exactly what the distance was between the two, the current driveway and the proposed. So what we tried to estimate was the distance between the Nishiyachi driveway and the far side of the actual extension of my full, because we couldn't quite tell based on the driveway. But also my understanding is that when Tom McCartle went to take a look at the plans and speak to the engineer, that he didn't have any more concerns with that distance, the separation. And so our concerns were mostly, staff's concerns were mostly dealt with, but we definitely weren't. So there's a proposal put in a septic system on site? Yes. I mean, that's the plan. And has there been any testing for that yet? No, we've looked at the sales maps and the slopes and it looks like you can do an onsite system there, but we've not done the testing yet. So would you accept a condition as to any permit approval that you would have first obtained before any development, you'd have to obtain a permit from A&R for the septic system? Absolutely. There's a little but there. Okay. This ordinance doesn't require as part of a subdivision that we get the wastewater permit and what the, so what our hope was that we could build the driveway this summer and then decide whether to how to market the lot and then get the wastewater permit. So I didn't want to have a condition on the permit that precluded us doing any work like the driveway. That wouldn't preclude you from doing work. That's fine if that doesn't preclude that then. It's just my concern, you know, the act of subdivision is always trying to create a lot that can be accessed in the public right of way, but that's also self-sustaining, whether it be, you know, accessible city sewer or parking for septic purposes. So, I mean, that would be my concern, but a condition on that would require at some point to obtain you or the successor. I don't have any problem with that as long as we can go ahead and build the driveway and then either sell a lot with an understanding that the buyer will get the permit or we'll get it, but something prior to a zoning permit would be fine because that, or a building permit, so that we need that for that anyway. We need the WW permit for that, right? I'm sorry, if the approval of the subdivision is not contingent upon the granting of a wastewater permit and the zoning permit is, what do we get in the subdivision by adding it on here? Why would we note it here if it's going to be covered elsewhere? Because usually we would, in the interest of creating a buildable lot, we would make sure that's a lot of buildable with something like a park test. But what is our goal in attaching it here? Well, to a certain extent, and this is, and I may have overstated how well flexible a condition was, I mean, I think my concern at least is that it's one thing to build the driveway, but it's another to either sell the lot or spin it off from the other lot if we don't know what we can obtain. If you do build the driveway, you do sell it. It doesn't have a wastewater permit. It's now in the hands of a third party and it proves to lack and perpetility for whatever reason. But I guess that would make it a mound system at that. My concern is leaving a lot without any developable. This is Jonathan. So section 3506C, wastewater and wastewater facilities. This is under the subdivision regulations. The applicant shall design the subdivision to provide potable water and wastewater facilities according to the following. And then number three, any subdivision not within the city's water or sewer service area shall demonstrate compliance with the state's wastewater system and water supply rules. That demonstration of compliance would be by obtaining a wastewater potable water supply permit from A&R. So I do think it is something that is a requirement for approval of the subdivision to demonstrate that you can have on-site wastewater disposal if you're not served by the city's municipal sewer system. And I share the same concerns you were just having. I think it would be unwise to approve it, say that you can go forward, have it be a legally separate lot, build a driveway, and then if it turns out that everybody's wrong and it's not possible to put an on-site wastewater system to then have this lot with the driveway there that's not actually developable and arguably should not have obtained a subdivision approval. We're not looking for an actual installed septic system, but I think the assurance... Okay, actually, it probably makes sense before we spent the money on the driveway to make sure that the land would hurt or have a wastewater system. I don't have a problem with that. I think from a marketability standpoint, people like to think the land already got at least the wastewater permit. I was actually going to back off of that a little bit. Based on what Ryan read, the requirement is that the applicant demonstrate compliance with the state's wastewater system and portable water supply rules, which I believe that is different than obtaining a permit. That shows that you are able to eventually obtain a permit based on site conditions. So that's my interpretation. I'm open to discussing that, but I don't see that as saying you need to get a permit before you can have the subdivision. Are there other ways to demonstrate compliance? That might be a question for Don. We prefer it as a condition. The other way would be to do the soils testing to sufficient that I could write a letter saying that it would get a permit. We've done that in some projects. It's just a monetary chick in the egg. It costs enough to go through the subdivision process that you'd like to... If you get through that, then it's worth spending the money to go ahead and do the site testing and design. So if, for some reason, I mean, for instance, the flag lot issue, if that were to be a fundamental problem with the... We hope it's not, but if that were a fundamental problem with the board, then it would have been a waste to spend several thousand dollars to do the testing. So we would prefer to have it a condition of approval that you obtain agency, natural resources, what a waste, what a permit prior to any development that development is termed as construction or acquisition or submittal for a zoning permit or a building permit. I think we have to back it up further and maybe that you're comfortable with. Yeah, I guess I ought to do that. I don't have a problem with that. My goal is to sort of get the driveway going before it's... I don't know how long it takes to get it applied to get the wastewater permit moving. I have no problem crafting a condition about the wastewater permit that doesn't preclude you from starting the driveway. That'd be fine. I just did, I think, before the subdivision, something that we can rely on with the ability to have its own septic system. I think that's a fairly low bar given how sophisticated septic system is. These days the rules are such that most sites, not all, but most can support on-site wastewater response. So I mean, I don't think it's either an onerous burden or one that would be... But perhaps unnecessary. The question I've been asking myself as I've been listening to the discussion is why would we build into the approval process steps that are not specifically there for us to consider? If we're just doing a subdivision at this point, it's up to the owner and the applicant at some future time to cross that river. I do believe that is one of the standards we need to demonstrate compliance with. The one that Ryan read is 3506. C. Mike Miller and the planning director. So I just wanted to go and say there isn't just for you to keep in mind all the flats have to be signed. So you do have a window whereby you could go and say approved with a condition that prior to the flat being reported, you do have a window of opportunity to go and kind of get in between where the concern is we don't want to invest money unless we know it's going to get approved. Right. And approving it. So there actually is a signing period. And that's actually the window I was thinking of with the visa right window. And that way, including from working on the driveway, it wouldn't work. I think it's necessary only because we do approve the subdivision and believe that it can't be for even though most lots can have some septic system. I'm looking to say just in terms of the difference between the compliance and actually having the lot can be compliant with the wastewater permit but versus actually having it in terms of the specific design. You said you could write a letter saying yes, we can put a septic system here. We don't know how big it could be for like a one bedroom house or a four bedroom house or a seven bedroom house. And specifically where based on where the house could go in building on below. I see the conundrum of like how specific do we want to get with saying what we have to do because the house is some, whoever buys it wants to put the house away in the northeast corner but you've already applied for the wastewater permit and have it specifically designed with the septic system somewhere else, hypothetical. So I guess I'd almost be thinking about just like the proving and having the knowledge that yes wastewater can be designed and fit in here but not necessarily having the actual wastewater permit. I'm fine with that. I think that makes sense to me as well. And again, I think there's a question as to what sort of burden, whether just I mean if you've been a little more sure in an initial letter like you know that this would definitely park then that would probably be enough to satisfy our standards for anything like that. It sounds like there's at least some chance that I wouldn't. But so I think I think what's important is that if Don wrote this letter and signed it he'd have a professional license behind it. It's more than just simply if I was to sign it and say I'm sure it will work. Which might be more faith-based. I'm comfortable with that too. Okay. I just want to understand exactly what the condition will be. That's fine. I just like to know when we submit something it's clear that we've met what you want. Sure. What I'm envisioning from our discussion here and I'll make it clear that we would add a condition at our approval that prior to the finalizing of the plaque, 180 days out from granting of the permit Don would have to submit a letter saying that this lot would support a septic system of such a capacity. Either a one bedroom house or two, four bedroom house. Some capacity based on his professional opinion, review of the site, review of the soils, whatever he relies upon as a professional engineer to make that opinion. I think that will be sufficient rather than requiring you to design an entire septic system not knowing what type of building you're going to or the successor is going, the owner is going to build. So that way at least we have an opinion on record that it supports some structure and that would have to be required after approval but before it became finalized. And then I think you very represented that you're planning on designing the driveway to meet the B71 standard. Yes. And there was a question about the sufficient clearing of vegetation and possibly either working with the tree warden in some of the staff comments. Have you had a chance to answer that? I belatedly tried to reach him and he snuck off to North Carolina so I missed him. We have no problem with talking to Jeff prior to starting work on the driveway. One of the other reasons we move the 25 foot is that there's a mature maple tree that in this process we discovered is actually on the neighbor's land but the pin is about a foot from the tree so the further we push it away we'll protect that tree some and John Snell gave us some suggestions and they were repeated in the staff comments about how we treat any roots and no matter within 20 feet you're still going to hit roots and how you treat those during construction. And then in the driveway construction incorporating the proper drainage control because obviously you're changing some of the slopes and the way water flows across as you're creating the driveway. What we agreed to a DPW is to have an essentially an upslope road ditch that will take, there's not much drainage above it there's only a little bit of land on Amanda's lot that will drain that way and it's through the woods and some lawn it's not going to be significant but that road ditch will lead down to Spring Hollow Lane and then around the cul-de-sac and then north to an existing city culvert. The proposals to tile that in together. Is that going to be open culvert? It'll be open swale until Amanda's driveway and then she has a culvert and then it's an open swale to a very short one to the city culvert. So really it's creating that new open swale to connect to her driveway because the rest of that is already existing? Well it's actually existing but it's just filled in so it's to maintain that to clean that out so that goes back to what it was when it was really constructed originally constructed. So one of the conditions is to maintain that new culvert system as part of the construction. It's not to me it's the existing system. Sorry the existing but to... Just to clean the ditch out. To clean it out as part of the installation process. Right but we'd like it not to be a long term. It's a city ditch. I thought you said maintain but I may have misheard. We're talking about just the construction process to clean it out to re-establish. Re-establish it would be a good... Does anybody have any other questions or what's the pleasure of the board? I'll make a motion that we approve. There's a number here. Application Z-2018-0039. Two lock subdivision as presented. For the condition that prior to signing the final plat applicant shall submit to the Planning Zone Department a letter or other document demonstrating the ability to comply with the state wastewater and potable water supply rules. And as a further condition that the agreed upon suggestions by the Department of Public Works for the swell along the new driveway and the cleaning out of the existing drainage on the plot one be completed. Motion by Ryan. Second. Second by Kevin. Further discussion? All those in favor please raise your right hand. We have your two lock subdivision. Thank you. You've got all the stuff to do here. In case. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Next item up for business is 213 Main Street. Mr. Gowans. Yes. State your name for the record. Robert Gowans. Okay. This is sketch plan review. Yes. So we're not going to swear you in because we don't formally take testimony on a sketch plan. But the purpose is really to give you an opportunity to present your proposal for us to ask questions and discuss and see if there are any issues. And take comment from any of the public that wish to comment on this initial sketch plan review. That gives you an opportunity to go back and add things that are missing or take alterations and then come back for the final review. So why don't you give us an overview of what you're proposing? Okay. So proposing a two lot subdivision. The current lot at 213 Main Street is the current square footage is 17,400 square feet or approximately about a half acre. Proposing to divide it into two lots. The lot one which is where my current house is now would be 10,042 square feet and a lot two. The proposed lot second lot would be 7,380 approximately square feet. Not proposing an additional curb cut proposal is to expand the current driveway curb cut. And that's how the works prefers to do that. Instead of putting in the second one just to expand that. So that's currently where we're at. So how will the driveway come into the, when you say expand, do you mean expand across the front of the? Yes. By approximately 12 feet. The driveway there now would go uphill approximately 12 more feet. Expand the curb cut in public works and I looked at it, would have to do a little bit of redesign on the sidewalk there. Right. And so ultimately in the end it would be a small right away because the beginning of that driveway would cross lot one before it enters into lot two. Okay. A small section of it. Yeah. That's what I was curious about. Yeah. So the lot one that would be a little bit of an entrance. The current property now has 154 feet of frontage on Main Street. Proposed lot two would be 55 feet. So proposed lot two would have 55 feet of frontage on Main Street. It would certainly be helpful to have that proposed driveway just to illustrate how far into lot two it's going to go and to understand the traffic flow. I mean I think I understand having a shared driveway on Main Street what you're talking about. But it would be helpful just to see it illustrated on it. To draw it out so you can have it. Okay. And to see how far, how wide of a driveway we're visually talking about. I think that's helpful. Also on your lot two I think I've got this right. You mentioned there was 55 feet width and you had plans of 65. That's an old. I think the one that got submitted was that was by Hinge. Hinge architect. Yeah, that's not. Do you have a new one? We have the Grenier one. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Okay, I see. Right. Yeah, this one has 55 feet. Right. The one that was done by Don Marsha. Should be. And I think that one said 55. Yeah, I mean. So it is 55. Yes. That, that was what you were looking at. Actually happened. Before Meredith came on board. So it was a little shuffle there. So that's, I think that's. So this is absolutely. Yes. It does show where the current driveway is. Because this shows 25 foot front yard setback, which is no longer setback is now 10 feet. 25 of the current house. Right. I mean, I'm looking at residential 3000. Right. Setbacks for the front. Right. Or 10. 10 foot setbacks. Yeah. But just on the old hind or hinge draft, it looks like it's illustrating a 25. Right. Because that was before the current zoning. Right. We weren't prior to the current zoning, we were not residential 3000. Also. First hinge drawing. Yeah. 810. It actually has a 10 foot front setback. We started it in the old zoning. And, and, and prior to Meredith and. Right. That would be another point that would be helpful. With all this, with, with both the setbacks. And I noticed that in, in. The, the map that Ron, Don has, has provided. There's the steep slopes. Yeah. So obviously. No, they're right here. Right. Yeah. But that's going to limit your building envelope. Yes. That you're obviously not going to be able to build on that steep slope. Correct. But then also it looks like it falls. The back portion of lot two doesn't look like it can be developed. There's no way to get there. Like you couldn't put a building back there. We have no intentions of doing that. But, but actually there would be. Like maybe like a shed or something. Well, actually. I do have a right away that comes in off from. Harrison Avenue. Which would be to the left of 22 Harrison Avenue. I do have a right away there. That's still in the remains current in the town records. That was from a number of years ago. There was the current house had a garage underneath it. That you accessed from a driveway that came in off from Harrison Avenue. But the answer to short answer questions have no intentions of doing anything down there. Anything that would be done would be up on the level lot on at Main Street. Right. And it would just be helpful to see the building envelope with the setbacks. Not that you have to design or put a house there. Where would go? Okay. Because there currently is no plan for. Right. Most subdivisions aren't like the last one. Right. So just where it would fit on there. Got it. Part of that is so that we know that there are spaces on here that would meet the setbacks. And still allow. Okay. And then this would be served by City Water and Sewer. Yes it would. Your current houses as well. Yes. The shed that's depicted on current proposed lot too. Yeah. It's going to be removed. Okay. Yeah. It would be removed. I was hoping to have it removed by now but. The photo shed. Yeah. That's going to be removed. Can we say removed? Are you demolishing it? Yes. Removed. Yeah. Are you taking it out? No. No. Removed. There's a. You can see there's another storage shed behind the house on. Opposed lot one. Right. Yeah. That one I think the only other issue was just to make sure that for the final review application there are comments addressing the subdivision standards sections 3502. I don't at this point. It's a fairly treeless area. Yeah. There's actually no trees on the proposed lot too. Just there's lilac bushes that would remain. No tensions removing those. But there's no trees on the proposed lot too. So I mean it would possible to install solar shed or something like that. It's an ideal spot. Just to orient the building toward the south of the big windows. It would also be allowed and that's one of the things we look to here in the new standards. It's an ideal solar location. My current house has solar on it. And would a construction of the house affect your solar panels? No. Does anybody here to be heard on this application? This sketch plan? Yeah. I think a lot of the city services are somewhat self-evident on 3502. I mean the ambulance supplier is right there on the curb. This is an infill high density area. So essentially what you're creating is you're taking that spare lot next to your house and turning it into additional housing. Right. So I think if you have any completely controversial need to be properly designed and they get their permits. You did say that you spoke with DPW about the driveway. Yeah just about the driveway. And that's what they prefer is to do it that way and not a second curb. Yeah I think that's more straightforward and here's to the zoning ordinance better too. Seeing any red flags come up as far as any issues that would be either non-starters or probably as far as the bylaws are concerned. They seem to, there's room to put a house on this under the bylaws as they exist. It just, it will be nice next time around just to have some of that. Yeah. The driveway and the building have a little flushed out to understand how that works. Yeah we'll have a plan with that on it. Good. Any other questions from the board then? All right. Well thank you. Thank you. Looks good. We'll see you back here soon. It's two weeks though. You'll need to do a new application. Okay. I'll talk to you tomorrow. Yeah. That sounds great. One down. Okay. I'll see you tomorrow. The next application is, has, the applicant has asked that it be pulled. That would be the Murray Hill application. And is the thing revoked or have they? They, they withdrawn it. They provided a official letter to withdraw it. Okay. And they will work with the planning department to do a new application. You fully withdraw it not just to. You didn't just table it. Yeah. Nope. They didn't just table it. They fully withdrew it and notified all of the butters before they even told us. So we couldn't convince them to take it. That doesn't require any additional up. Nope. Nope. Just simply if anybody was here for that. So the next item is 184 Elm Street. She would like. Yes. I'm going to step down and stop the event. Yes. Hello. So if you'll state your name for the record and then I'll swear you in. I'm Wil Sheaubow. Zachary Hunter. Okay. You'll raise your right hand. You'll solve the swear of firm with the evidence you're about to give for the matter under consideration. Nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. Thank you. All right. Mr. Sheaubow. Take us through what you're proposing. Well, the proposal for 184 Elm Street is to. Invert a the most part unused carriage barn attached to the main four unit property into more living space by adding two more units and corresponding parking. And in the process having to remove a portion of the carriage barn which is at one point probably an addition kind of a crumbling falling down shed. And this is not. Is this the same property we reviewed a couple of years ago? Or is this. There was a sketch plan last fall. And we went through. I wasn't part of it at that point. Okay. That's where my confusion. Because I was remembering that this looked awful familiar. Yeah. Yeah. More of a feasibility at that point in my understanding. Testing the waters. Previously it was under the old zoning rules. If you had more than four units you fell under plain unit development and you therefore had to go through the three step process. So they had gone through the first step of the three step process. And then the zoning changed. So now you're back with the same project. Same project. Same project. Same project with new rules. That was part of the delay was talking to Sarah back in November. You might want to just wait. So otherwise we might have to go through two reviews on two different zoning ordinances. Great. Or at least presumably get in under the old one. So. Here maybe Mike. So the application is stated to be site plan conditional and demolition of the facility structure. Do we have to do preliminary preliminary approval? Or do we jump right into it within the ordinance? We jump right into it. There isn't a preliminary under the under the new rules. It's a one step process unless it's a subdivision subdivisions are the only two steps. This project is not a subdivision. No longer. Is no longer a subdivision. Correct. Okay. You can take us step by step and I just like a refresher just because I am going to mix this up in my head. What we did last year. So what's there now? There is a four unit. Two units in the main house and it's kind of L coming off of the two apartments. And then there's this carriage barn which is, you know, uninhabited. Uninhabited. Yeah. Some structural foundation issues and there's a shed portion coming off the back of that, which is the proposed section to we're going to remove this kind of location of the new parking. Then there's another detached carriage barn behind that, which is not part of this application. That is also storage. Okay. So there's, so essentially you have the main house with two units in it. And you have two apartments behind it. Which is attached to the main house. Which is attached to the main house. And then attached to that four units is the carriage barn. Yeah.  Well, there's, it's not really a connector shed. If you look on page A03, you'll see sort of the north facade. And then there's the porch. And then there's the main gable. And then there's the long photograph portion. And then you can see the carriage barn attached to that. So the shed that we're proposing to remove is on the tail end of that on the backside. So, you know, to the far western end. Okay. It's the fourth segment of the rather long classic. Caterpillar. Yeah. Exactly. It keeps going. Okay. So it's just the shed section that's attached to the, we're calling it carriage barn. Yeah. Presumably. Yeah. I think the site plan shows it, you know, as well. You know, you can see sort of like this. Just as you said, the caterpillar that keeps going. Right. And then, and then beyond the shed, there's a space. Yup. And then there's another barn. Yup. That you're, it's not part of this. Yeah.  Yeah. And then I know, okay. So, and then going to A5 then is, is what you're proposing or sort of these drawings of this. Yeah. Right. Yeah. So sort of in the space of where that connector shed, what about the connector shed, but the, what we're proposing to remove is going to be, there's some parking and the exterior staircase access for the two new apartments. Okay. And that will be the primary point of access for the two apartments? Yes. Yeah. Will be these staircases that have been back? Yup. And will these two parking spaces be for the, the new apartments? Yeah. And is this just the drawing or is this, is it going to have this sort of. That's just a conceptual staircase right now. It's probably just going to be, you know, the foundation concrete beers. I presume that was pretty cool. Yeah. Yeah. We haven't been able to last railings. One bedroom apartment. Yeah. They're essentially. That, that orients me to, to what's being proposed. One of the issues last time around was parking. I remember correctly, you have a parking arrangement with 182. That's okay. Hi. Hi. Hi. Um. Um. Remember, there was a reconsideration. Is that still being proposed or do the two new parking spaces take care of that or how, how does parking look today and how is it going to look tomorrow? I believe you've been in correspondence with Ray. Yeah. So, um, you have the copy of the original agreement. It's recorded in the records. Um, which has. It's basically all parallel parking. Right. Um. Your property on 182. And then there used to be a parking spot on 184. Um, but that has been removed to allow the access to the rear spots. So, um, I think the agreement that. Mr. Guy. Yeah. So basically they can have, because currently it stands is that 184 has three parking spots on your property. You have to. Yeah. So that basically they can have, because currently it stands is that 184 has three parking spots on your property. You have to. You have to. We actually allow one of these people to actually have to open their property. Yeah. This is our property. So currently they're all property. Yeah. But I think the, the change is adding one spot. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's. I'm looking at this. Pose site plan. So it looks as if. What are the. What are the parking requirements? For this district. The parking requirements are one per dwelling unit. So they would need to have. Six. For. 184. So. Your proposal is five. Right. Well, it would, with a new agreement, it would be for. Um. The parking requirements are one per dwelling unit. So they would need to have. Six. For. 184. So. Your proposal is five. Um. Six. There would be four spots. On 182. For the 184. Um. Plus the two new ones. Okay. So. So right now you have. I think the mix. You have five. You have five spaces. Five parking spaces. I think the mix up is that in the. As I sort of. Came to this project after the sketch plan from previously. And then had already been drawn as. Existing. And I wasn't aware of the agreement. Um. It was written up. Which has. Three parking spots for 184. Plus two parking spots. For 182. Um. 182 property. Um. But with the proposed. Site plan there would be. Four. Parking spots. On 182. For 184. And then. Two. For 182. And then the two new ones are putting on. 184. For total six. For total six. Okay. So the three parallel spots and then one of the angled spots. Yes. Yeah. Two. Two new spots. Between. The old shadow. Yeah. The agreement that's written up is for. Three parallel spots for 184. And then two parallel spots for 182. So basically the proposed site plan complies to the zoning. But the current. Agreement that's recorded in the land records does not. So they just have to work out an amended. Yeah. Agreement and then record an amended agreement. And then everything will be. And just so you know. This is. An issue. And Miss Hunter since you're here as well. So that you know. Um. If we do. If we were to grant. That approval. Um. That's just zoning approval. It still has to be worked out privately between parties. Which is. If you have private legal rights, it doesn't matter what the zoning. Permit says. Doesn't change the legal rights and responsibilities between the parties. And it sounds like you're. Working towards. Some type of. Workable agreement on those lines. Um. But. The zoning permit wouldn't change. It would just simply say that. If you do come up with six. You can build. What you want. Of course, if you can't come up with six. You can't. So it certainly puts. My pressure. Between parties to work out. Parking. But it sounds like you're working. In that direction. Um. But I just wanted to make clear. Because sometimes people can get confused. Between the interplay between the zoning. And the private agreements. Right. Right. But our permit won't. Whether we issue a permit or not. Won't change that. So. Unless anybody has any other. Frequent questions before. Demolition. Is. A threshold. Question. The demolition. I. Before. Which case. I wonder if we can make a bridge to that decision. No. If it was sketch. We may have just said. The. The. I guess the cleanest way is to just do it. Yeah. Okay. So. I think. For the record. If you can give me a little bit of. Information about the. About the shed. Um. Does it have a foundation. No. Okay. Not that I'm aware of. I mean. I think some of the pictures as you can see. On the. Those. Page. Show. It's. Kind of. It's. Such. Page. Show. It's. Essentially. Underneath there. It's sagging. Stone. Or. Anything really. Under there. And is this. Just. A. Narrative. So. The structure is listed on the natural registers. Contributing. Um. But is this shed original to the barn itself. I'm unaware that if it's original. Or. Not. Um. I mean I think the contributing element is. Because it's in the historic district. My guess is that the shed was. I mean it could have been original. I mean it's hard to say whether you know. Well I mean just in your investigation. Is this. Is this something where the barn itself. Has. Four walls and the shed sits. Well yes it's true. It's definitely extraneous. It was. Built. After the fact whether that was. 50 years ago. Or. 80 years ago. It would be anyways. A while ago. There's clavards. On the inside of the shed. So that. I guess a good testament that it was added on afterwards. Speculation. To what purpose of this. Shed was. My guess is some sort of livestock. There's definitely some like. Hatches from the main carriage barn. Into like this kind of like a loft. Area in the shed. My guess is like. Store a storage. And is this something where the foundation is worn out. Or where there just never was. I just don't think there was one. So. Wasn't built with the same permanence as the main. Carriage structure. Yeah. Is it something where. The. Rotting of this shed. Attached to the building is deteriorating. The main building itself. I wouldn't necessarily say it's contributing. A lot to the deterioration of the carriage barn. I think one of the elements of the project is. Substantial foundation repair. Which. With the shed being gone. Opens up the opportunity to really. Repair the carriage barn foundation in a proper manner but. This would be removing a good portion of the carriage barn. Or the shed. To repair. If you were to say put a foundation under the shed. Right. I mean. What kind of expense would that be. For the foundation under the shed where one. Had never. Would be. Substantial. Couple. You know. Upwards above. Ten thousand. Well. Yeah. And it would make the repair of the carriage barn foundation. More expensive. More difficult. Exactly. It would limit access for a. Doing a good job on the carriage barn. Which is a more desirable structure to retain. And it makes the. In terms of the site plan with the exterior stair access in the. Parking. Makes that. More. Well. I'm thinking strictly from demolition. Part of the findings that we have to make is just to. You know. I'll read it. The demolition replacement of a structure portion there. Listed as. Structure. To the Vermont historic sites and structure survey and the. Historic resources. Is prohibited. Unless the development review board approves the demolition site. Restoration plan. And. The board finds that demolition is part of a site development. Design plan applicable. That would provide clear and substantial benefit to the. Community. I think that's the sort of. Course we're trying to argue here is that you know. By. You know removing this shed. We are therefore creating more housing. That is. Essentially. Clear and substantial benefit to the community. Right. Right. We just have to be careful because of course you know. You have an old. You know. Italian eight style house. It's very easy to raise it and put up. A six unit building. That's true. And that would be a community development. But that's not what this is. Yeah. Courage. I would interpret it more along the lines of whatever. We're going with some of this testimony which is that. What you're saying is that the central part of this. This is a plan to rehab this bar. Yeah. Which has a need for a foundation new foundation. And repairs. Right now is empty and unoccupied. And really doesn't serve whatever use it. It won't serve whether that be. Farming or. Store forces or carriages. In town. It's not serving any function whatsoever. You're proposing to bring it back into use. By creating residential structures. Right. Yeah. And that this shed. Portion of the shed. One doesn't really provide any benefit. This is not as if you could make it into a bedroom. Does not have a foundation. To put a foundation on is. An elaborate expense which creates all kinds of other. And it's not the main. Structure. Yeah. I think it's obviously removing of it is not going to. Detract from the street face of the building. Historic character. Any other questions about. Demolition. We don't. Satisfied. I think it's pretty straightforward. Okay. The driveway. Right now. Remember correctly it's hard packed. I think it's crumbling. Crumbling. Is the new. Is the plan to what kind of surface. There's there's been discussion of paving. Repaving the existing. I think there's definitely some budgetary concerns. You know whether it's going to be a permeable or impermeable surface. I think. Mr. Guy has long term plan would be to have it. But I know that obviously you know the zoning regulations like. Permable surfaces you know in terms of. Rainwater. And whatnot. Well I just. You know from a stormwater management and erosion control. Trying to understand. Even if it's hard packed. That's a semi impermeable surface. Yeah. Although. This is a fairly minimal expansion. I mean you're talking about. Ultimately. Being the driveway as it is. Except for this addition. Yeah. Sort of. I mean you can sort of see it in these perspective. The site plan doesn't have a topography is for the most part flat. But there's a slight drop. You know. You're going to kind of go down. These parking spaces so the two new areas. Created will. Be sort of in their own. They're below the main elevation of the main parking driveway area. So it's not like it's going to run off into the street or anything. And I think. Based on some of the landscaping plans that we're thinking about. You know some sort of like you know. Rain garden or something in the way to deal with. That little bit of runoff. From the new. Site. There's kind of a depression. I think it's summer street is the street that runs parallel behind route to. There's kind of a question behind. That house and that's where. Where. The parking comes down. It's probably five or six feet lower than. The. Main street level parking. And then it drops probably even a little bit further as you. As you come to the. To the. Shared property lines with the properties on summer street. And I notice that the design calls for. This. Turn around. Area. Yeah. Like a little turn around. You can pull in and then back into the turnaround and then go out forwards. And are there any. On 182. You know which this essentially will be parking. Facing 182 or the windows on that side. Is there. Okay. Is there any. Mitigating. Well I mean I think we propose you know landscaping to be installed around parking. Talk about. You know. Cedar trees are already kind of. The. Hedge. Basically on the property line. Large. You. Yeah. You. I'm hoping we can keep those.  And I hope like we'd like. I'm. Development of 184 of the plant more. So that you know that parking area is. More. Yeah. Yeah. The headlights will be facing north. So there'll be no direct headlights. In theory. Shining at 182. So. And that. It sounds like with the existing plantings. Some of that is already mitigated but. You're proposing additional Cedar hedges. Yeah. I think you know some four new Cedar trees. We can always increase that as well. I mean I think the four new ones. Be the. Requirements for the. Don't. Regulations. I think. So you have. It's definitely a tight area. But. Well I mean that's that's another issue is that you know this is. Okay. We're adding another car to. Already. And this was a concern that we raised last fall. About the very tight. Driveway configuration. Some of us require different cars to make sure everybody gets in. And out. I think we had taken testimony but would just be helpful at this point in time about the existing. You already have. Almost looks like seven cars with 182. In that area. Going in and out. Characterized the way the traffic flows currently. In the traffic. Um. It seems to be I mean. You have more of a. Design. Yeah. Yeah exactly that's the thing is you know there's. There's the design of it you know versus the day to day. I've. Made a variety of site visits and seen. You know midday and seen. Two cars in the parking lot. You know some of them already. Diagonally park as you know the proposed. New sites you know then sometimes it's parallel parking. And then I think it sometimes you probably get parking from. One of the. One eight. Six. Dr. Nellies. Building I think. One seventy four I think occasionally people from the. Dentist office try to park up in there. Times but. I think the signage is pretty clear as. Not to. Right. It's some. You know and this is another issue about the. Paving versus. Hardpack which is. You're getting people to change their parking behaviors. To. Adopt those back three from parallel to. Angled. And what you're saying is that they're already starting. I was. I mean actually I think I did the Google street view recently. Showed. Car. Diagonally parked in there. Towards the back end of the. The. Diagonal parking area. Mr. You live on the site or is this. A rental property. Me. Yeah. No I will and I are business partners I'm here to be a. A second head. Exactly. Okay. Not a great guy yet. Sorry. Okay. So the owner but the owner lives there right. He does not. Well I guess it's part time part time. I'll be moving it tomorrow. For. Season. I think one consideration from the old. Zoning to the new zoning was that the old zoning. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So the owner but the owner lives there right. He does not. Well I guess he part time part time. I'll be moving it tomorrow. For. Season. The other thing was that the old zoning used to have rules. I said that you could not block in. Previous. That. That. Does not exist anymore in the new zoning. So that was one of the conditions that was left that pretty much said. Landlords and property managers can. It's it's not a city concern. If people are blocking themselves in that's a landlord. Tenant management issue if you can stack three cars in and. Tenants can manage. Who parks first who parks second who parks third so they can get out in the morning. That's that's up to them. To figure out how they can do that. Right. But I'm not understanding this. Yeah. Yeah. And that's and that's one of the big differences previously you couldn't. Block in previous cars so it was very. Important. In. An application in November to demonstrate that each car had free access back to. No car could get blocked in each car would have to have free access back to the street. That requirement does not exist anymore. So. Right. It's not important for circulation but isn't a requirement for parking any longer. Right. You know I think in. One element of this in the reality of the design that we've shown that there is adequate parking for each unit but. You know. Elm Street is full of meterless. Street side parking you know I know we considered potentially. You know if we had to go for a waiver for one parking spot. Or something that you know one of the. The guidelines I think in the regulations for that is that. Access to. Yeah exactly on street parking nearby. And there's plenty of that. So if my guess is that potentially the people who live in the two front units might just park.  This gets too crazy. But. I think. You've shown that it can work in theory. For. Any other questions about circulation. I think the two new spots or the two new units have dedicated spots directly next to those. Yeah. So it doesn't really seem to me to affect the whatever's kind of existing there. I mean as you say you've demonstrated that you can add another space to meet the. Requirements of the regulations but. Practically. The way I see this the two new spaces that are two new apartments that are going to the renovated carriage bar. Have their own new dedicated spaces right next to it so. I don't have any concerns. Yes. The turnaround is listed on the proposed site plan. A04. As being nine feet wide. Is that wide enough. For a car to back around. I don't know what the average width of a car is. Well I think the you know the. The placeholder for car parking I think is nine by 20. Parking. Yeah. For being still. We can we can we can make that. I guess. Bigger if need be. You know I think it's not shown in detail but you know in terms of the radius. You know. Or like the B71 standards. There's a foot to grab on the. Yeah. 182 side. Yeah. I know there's building there so there's limit. Yeah. I think. Kate's point is. It's well taken especially about. Maybe not necessarily the width but the radius. I mean that's a sharp corner. Yeah. To to turn around. That's also your snow snow storage. Well I think the snow storage. Yeah. It's kind of a mix. So that means. You're located behind the. Push through. Let's. Let's talk about. So you're proposing. Snow storage. In that. In that. Behind that little. Turn around. Yeah the setback I mean I guess. That for the whole parking. I don't think that would that would not be for the whole. Parking zone. I mean I think currently it gets kind of packed up right in front of the. You know if look at the existing site plan where that one parking spot. Is. Basically it gets packed right there in front of the carriage barn.  And or it's snow blow. To retain access. Yeah. Yeah so it seems like the new parking area could be split between. You know behind the turnaround and then. In front of where the two cars are parked. That could be the snow blow. Snowblower territory. But. The snow storage area in front of cars that doesn't look like. Particularly a great deal. Of storage space. Especially if we get a lot of snow. I don't see how you're going to be able to. Change that radius on the on the turn. And is the. Average. Width of a. Snowplow. Is. Nineteen. Or wider. I think like a pickup truck I think it's. Smaller. Smaller than. Six six to eight is what I would guess. That's your main snow storage area. Back being outlisted as a snow storage. And to ensure. That that nine foot turnaround. Is not a parking area. That's where it's going to have to. With this additional area. Yeah. Push that snow back there. And it's going to have to go pretty far back. In any given year. Yeah. Into the grass. Yeah. Which may actually help. In front of one eighty two. To have less snow. You. Are there. There's currently four. So this is the adding additional. Yeah. Next question. Sort of moving through is about bike racks. Like facilities. Sidewalks that are existing. Proposing any type of bike rack. No. I mean. We could be creative and. Add. Bike lot into the exterior stairs. Yes. And hooks. I mean and then there's also the whole other barn. Which. People are sort of using as well. Right. I mean I think the reason why we have to review this is the idea that it's encouraged. Biking. Like the facilities so. You know. While I. Don't necessarily. Have it. Every project has to have a bike. Yes. With six minutes. Located this close to downtown. I think it would make sense to have some sort of. Well it's secure bike parking and that could be behind a locked door in the existing garage. Where people currently store things. Or something. Nasty. Underneath. The stairway. Building. Is there. Well. Compatible. With. Use. Yeah. I think currently one of the tenants. Is a bike mechanic and. The proposed the carriage barn that we're proposing to renovate. There's he's got a little area with like six bikes. Stabbed away so. I think so. I guess. Built him his own bike. Right. So then. Moving on to the next issue about the site landscaping. If you could just walk us through what you're proposing for the landscaping. Well. Basically. The majority of the landscaping I think we're going to try to concentrate. Around the. Sort of the new parking area. We I think that the trees. You know we're moving to trees and then. So I think to hit the. Zoning regulations for I think it's. Ten. For. However every 30 feet or something. But I will be adding hopefully some more cedar trees. You know a screening. Around the parking area. And then. Juniper bushes. And lilacs. You don't you know. Don't have a landscape plan. The minor site plan. But I know that. Mr. Guyette is. Under who wants. Happy. Who wants to do. You know. Sort of see where we get to at the end. It's important part for him. We don't have it. We haven't drawn where. The juniper shrubs or the lilacs will go. But there's already some existing lilacs. Kind of at the corner of the. Driveway. Along the property line there. It's existing. To mature. I think. Maples in the front yard. So. So. So. So. So. To. So. Yeah. I understand. It's a minor site. But. Same time. A little bit. To. Through. Cluster. Lilac. Yeah. I mean I guess. I'm looking at. So. There are. Two trees. Along. The. Shed that have to be. Yeah. Basically. For the parking area. I suspect. Given. How close. I suspect given how close they are to the shed, they weren't necessarily planted. They're basically dead. Yeah. And they wouldn't trees that close to a building until they were volunteer. Yeah. So not that we have to approve every taken down of the tree, but the discussion earlier about having cedars along, because my big concern doesn't look like you're not touching the trees in front of Elm Street, nor are you touching the shrubbery along the side of the driveway. It's a courtyard area. Courtyard. You're expanding into the yard. You're building this driveway. You're knocking down the shed, taking down those two trees. So really, that's the main area. You're going to put some type of landscaping shrubbery in front of the entrance and exit for aesthetic reasons. You're going to line the driveway, it sounds like, with shrubs. Would you accept the condition that the plants that you pick from the non-invasive list, and that you maintain any plantings? Yeah. And I think the really important plant is obviously across from the driveway to 182 and put in cedars or similar type of evergreens that are going to augment the U block that exists, or to the extent that some of those branches have to be cut back in those dead areas and you create that visual screen to maintain so that when cars come in, because I'm thinking in winter, if a car comes in, backs into the spot, their lights are going to go right on 182, you want some sort of evergreen. Yeah. Yeah.  It just seems like it's pretty tight there. Yeah. The cars are going to get in. They don't quite understand how they're doing it. There are also trees that are going to have to move there. Yeah. They're going to have to be tied up. So I guess everything would have to be pretty tight. There would essentially probably be right on the property line. Right. I mean, Ms. Hunter, I'm really thinking about like right here in this portion of the house. Here, I'm looking at the A2, oh, A2 existing. Existing, but I'm actually probably going to A4, A4 that would have the proposed. It does seem a little crunch back there at the distance off the corner of where the two new units will be. The property line's only 12 feet up on the house. Oh, Sarah, you didn't like that? Yep. I would be hesitant to make a condition that doesn't even work for the physical standpoint of it. No, that's why I'm just sort of talking through week right. I understand that, but it sounds like you would like to put some planning here. It's our goal. I mean, most part of the design is to have privacy screened plantains. Yeah, I mean, that's so I mean, my big concern is if you look at A4 where the two cars are facing in, if they back in or even if they're rear lights, that's a pretty close proximity to 182. And if there are windows along this section here, because you can't control when cars come in. If somebody comes back from a very long road trip at 3 in the morning and flashes the lights as they back in, even if it's just for a short period of time, I mean, there should be some mitigation screening for that. And I agree with Kevin that if the plantings won't work, they won't work. Have we determined that the existing, you said it was you, Utreet? That's only going to the end of the course. It's basically the front door. OK, so we've determined that that's insufficient given the new configuration. It's the second that you're having now. They're thinking about needing more trees. They just don't know, maybe they would fit. Good idea to maybe come to Sarah offline. Yeah. Maybe they would fit if they were very tall in the vent. I'm not sure. And that additional screening would be desirable from your perspective? I think that's part of our plan. It's just hard to depict on small paper and have, you know, here's the species. It's starting to get busy in there. So that area is maybe Maritza. It's busy area. And it would be good to see and understand that on a larger scale. Obviously, we want a condition to then, with any of these plantings, if they be maintained, if they die. I think it's definitely an important element of the design for sure. And then the outdoor lighting. How many outdoor lighting? We're just planning for two. To illuminate the stairs and the doors. They're shielded downlights. Downcast. And that's the whack lighting on the back there. Yeah. This would be above the doors. Yeah, I think they would potentially be next to each door. So they would illuminate the entrance as well as the stairs. The 11.5 watts that's specified for those lights. What's that equivalent to the Indian Candlestick? That's a good question. I would guess 75. I think a 9 is 40 generally. That's pretty close. It would be getting up to 60 or 70. It's not 300. Yeah, it's not a spotlight. It's not a mercury halide. When you put it in a... We'll get used to these new measurements. Yeah, the lumens are the magic numbers. Yeah, that's right. So 100,000. There was a staff comment about the fact that the lamps were not energy star. There's a requirement that they be energy star, but it's an LED light. It's in the zoning, and when I do the revision to the zoning, I'm going to contact and find out if we just have a requirement for LED rather than having a require for energy star rating. I think energy star is an independent... It would be interesting to know whether LED is always automatically energy star or whether energy star adds some other value. Yeah, if it doesn't add any value, really what we care about is the energy. There may be some value... I'm speculating here, but there may be some value in color correction in energy star rather than the unrated, because I've seen the two of them side by side. Energy star is a little more expensive. Maybe... I don't know. I think it really applies a lot of times if you're going for a rating for your whole project. Energy star is the standard. But I do know with LED lights, color correction is important, because you can have some pretty glaring looking LED lighting. Yeah, we'll have to do some additional homework on that. Right now, the requirements say it's supposed to be energy star rated lamps only. We can provide that and be star rated. We can find a very similar lamp that is energy star rated if this one is not. I will say WAC lighting is a pretty large residential producer of lighting. It's not some knock-off we found on Amazon or something like that. Quality lights, I wouldn't be surprised if it was rated. Just that and the regulations have failed to screenshot that part of the light cut sheet. Okay, and that's something you think you can just supple that with it. I don't feel that beyond another hearing for that. Yeah, no additional hearing for that. Okay, I think those were the main issues on the site plan. Did anyone else have any other questions or concerns? I had one other on page 11 that I think is, should be somewhat, it's at the bottom. And it's about the fact that under these, under the rules, aisles shall be 20 feet wide. And the proposal here is to be 12 feet. And so I kind of wrote out some things. DPW director was comfortable stating the use is existing. And the addition of two vehicles will not pose significant risk of obstructed access. Obstructed vehicles can turn into the turnaround to allow for other vehicles to park and then give them clear path to egress. Staff finds that given the physical characteristics of the lot being long and narrow in existing development, the house is closed together using a shared driveway. The only possible way to widen the driveway would be to remove landscaping and fencing in the front yard and pave closer to the house. Weighing the inconvenience of backing into the turnaround to let someone access the parking compared to loss of landscaping to widen the driveway. Staff would keep the nonconforming driveway narrow as the better option in this case. But that's certainly your call to make. I think the testimony earlier was that the configuration while crowded does seem to work. People getting stuck in the driveway as it exists. And the addition of really talking about one car because we're losing a space and we're gaining two spaces. So net one car. I suspect anyone coming to visit has confusion but anyone who lives there quickly learns the way of the world or the way of the driveway. Is that accurate, Ms. Hunter? I saw your husband point out forward the other day. So he hasn't figured out quite well. Yeah, right. I would definitely defer to DPW. Okay, so let's go through conditional use. I think it's the last fairly straightforward. So 3302 talks about capacity of community facilities and utilities. Says the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed development shall not cause a disproportionate unreasonable burden on the city's ability to provide community facilities and utilities including one local schools, police and fire, ambulance, street infrastructure and maintenance, parks and recreation facilities, water supply, sewage, disposal, stormwater systems and infrastructure. I think it's pretty self-evident that none of this is going to be impacted by adding to residential units in an already residential area. The impacts are really internal to the community facilities. So the next one is traffic. The applicant shall demonstrate proposed development when I have an undue adverse effect upon the traffic in the area including volume type of timing. The traffic generated by the proposed development shall not reasonably and disproportionately reduce the level of service. That reasonable measures have been taken to mitigate or minimize the amount of vehicle traffic generated by proposed development. Talk about a net one car on an otherwise major street, Vermont State Route 12 at that point. Unlikely this one or two traffic trip per day is going to impact how the traffic slows. This is fairly close to the new intersection to the stop sign. This property for sure. It probably makes coming in and out of your driveway a little bit easier these days. A character of the neighborhood, neighborhood standards, applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed development shall not have an undue adverse effect upon the character of the neighborhood. This neighborhood is a mixed-use residential district including the Meadow, which has historic homes, close to sidewalks, relaxed streets, large homes have been converted to multi-family buildings, and neighborhood continues to have historic appeal. I think that part of what your testimony was that this preserved some of this historic appeal by keeping the carriage barn functional and improving it. Regulations are intended to protect the residential scale and character of the neighborhood, created by primarily residential use, historic building stock, front yards, porches, walkable tree line streets. So, I think that if anything, the proposal to have some sort of bike facility built into this, safe bike storage, is that the phrase? Secure. Secure bike storage space is important for that. And architectural compatibility, you're restoring an existing carriage barn. The demolition of the shed is, if anything, going to improve that structure. Yards, lot coverage and landscaping. The new development shall maintain a sense of open space. The decision keeps the driveway narrow to add these plantings that you're proposing. Do that. So, any other questions about conditionally? If not, wait for Kevin. I have a question in the meantime. Yeah. We had a good, I think important discussion about that area where the two new parking spaces are going in, screening for the neighbor's home, about the nine foot area that will be partially used for storage, but also very important for turning around. Do we feel we've collected enough detail on that? Or are we satisfied with assurances that it could be more than nine feet that landscaping will be worked out, that the turning radius will be good? Well, I think. I kind of wonder where we landed. That's where there were the most questions about the long term function of the site and compatibility between properties for me, and I wonder what we need to do there. So, at least on the screening, I'm comfortable with the representations of the planting and screening because there's a neighbor that are seeming to work it out and understanding what the issues are. And I think we've raised them. Because this kind of reminds me of the Sherwood Drive application where, you know, the initial proposal was for a live vegetative screening wall. And when that proved unfeasible or not satisfied, the neighbors raised these issues. I mean, I think they had to, for some reason, they had to get additional permitting that they sought out fencing instead of that proof. Yeah, I think my understanding, and I'm going to back this up, is that the initial sort of, you know, back last fall, the sort of sketch plan review was that the guyettes as well as the hunters kind of, you know, worked out, you know, that there was some other parking arrangement alternatives that sort of took away all the courtyard space and made the main parking area more conjectured. You all sort of agreed that this was... Does it make sense to not take out the grants for the... Yeah. Yeah. And then for the whole re-parking. Yeah, exactly. So I think, you know, obviously the pattern of neighborly communication and this is set and it's important to maintain. I think it would be a good idea maybe I should share it online maybe we could do a consultation with them. For sure. And see what she would suggest. Yeah. Because I have spoken with them. Yeah, I was speaking with Alex actually at one point about... Yeah. So is it the board's responsibility to provide any sort of protection for the neighbor when it comes to screening or is it sufficient to continue neighborly interaction? Again, I'm thinking of sort of long-term circumstances when different people make... And it is an honest question about what is typical in a situation like this. It's pretty close quarters. You want to do it right? I mean, I was giving my opinion. I was bringing up the Sherwood Drive family center example where we approved at one point what they had proposed of a live vegetative screening that proved ineffective. Proved ineffective and then they moved to a fencing solution and came back. Right. And, you know, I think what we can do and maybe this is the best way to protect is that and this is why I raised this particular is that the proposed vegetative screening shall provide and just make this a condition, shall provide an effective visual barrier of those new parking area of 182. That way if it doesn't, you know, it becomes an issue of the permit and it does give the neighbor some, you know, if they can work it out informally, great. But then if the neighbor is unsatisfied, it can reopen. I wonder if that isn't delving a little too far into the weeds from the standpoint of what our real responsibilities are. Well, I think it falls under a conditional use only because... Yes, I get that. But trying to project what the future is going to hold is, I mean... I understand. We all play that game. Well, sure. And it's easy to imagine these two people getting along as opposed to the successors who are going to... The successors may... Spies each other. Venom might be glowing. Yes, for sure. And that's the thing about a permit is it does try to anticipate the future based on what we're allowing today. I guess I'm inclined to think of some condition that would, you know... What you just said satisfies my concern and I think codifies what I'm hearing anyway. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, because in terms of, like, we didn't really sell value to the house. And part of it may be in practice too. Part of this is trying to predict. And that's at least the family center issue is trying to predict when they propose one solution, when it didn't work, they came back and proposed another and we haven't heard from them since. So it must all be very happy. Okay. So what's the pleasure of the board? I think we've gone through... Kevin, we went through the conditional use and no issues. So there's essentially three approvals that we have to give. The minor site plan of review, the conditional use, and the demolition of the contributing structure. I know there are certain conditions that we have talked about through here, some of which are also staff. If you look on page 20 and 21, there's about six staff recommendations. Some are, most are just standard. The erosion control practice, the applicant shall follow the erosion control practices outlined in section 3008D. Second is the applicant shall manage all stormwater on site and not direct flow downward. Down the driveway toward the street or adversely impact neighboring properties. Three, the applicant shall record a revised right-of-way and driveway use agreement within 30 days of the DRB decision and prior to the issuance of a zoning permit, the revised agreement will reflect in number four of the agreement that the area will be used for the parking of six automobiles and that the 184-86 shall have access to one diagonal and three parallel parking spaces near Elm Street, which is I think what you're proposing. Four, the applicant shall not obstruct the use of land that's designated as turnaround and snow storage, which we talked about before. Five, that landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy condition. Dead or dying plants shall be replaced within one growing season with variable plants in terms of the type, form, size of maturity, et cetera, of at least minimum size requirements specified in figure 320. Six, any future enlargement, alteration, or change of use will require permit in the City of Montpelier, and then we had talked about possibly two more. One was to have incorporated a secure bike storage area and the other is the visual screen in front of the proposed new parking area to sort of tighten the number five there. Did we want to add a number for number seven? Provide secure bike storage for a minimum of so many bikes, or is it just as long as there's bike storage for at least one bike? At least one bike. Provide secure bike storage, period. Any of those conditions cause you heartburn, problem, upset stomach? Okay. What's the pleasure of the board? We can vote on these all at once, so we can break them down into all three. I think that, I don't know, just a thought, it makes sense to approve separately. I think you're right. Because conditional use, we're going to want to add the conditions and they might be cleaner. And so I would agree that I would make the proposal to approve the site land approval with, where do we end up with the screening? I think we had proposed to have the visual screening, screening plantings between the proposed new driveway, new parking area, and 182 Helm Street. If feasible? If feasible. Well, I think we were going a little beyond that too. Just requiring some type of screening. Okay, some type of screening. So you start with the plan, that doesn't work. Okay. I propose acceptance of site plan approval with the conditions screening between 182 and 184 as detailed by the board. So motion by Kevin, seconded by Ryan. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please raise your hand. All right. So does someone want to take up, let's go with the demolition. Sure, I'll move that we approve the demolition of the contributing historic structure as presented in the application. Motion by Ryan, seconded by Kate. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please raise your right hand. And as approved. So that brings us down to conditional use. I'll move that we approve the conditional use application as presented with the conditions that were already set out during the restatement. One through, one through seven. The additional conditions, one through seven. That were discussed prior. That's sufficiently. I think it is because you're going to write this up anyway. You already read them. So I would second. Motion by Ryan, seconded by Kevin. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please raise your right hand. We do have approval. So we'll write these up, these conditions. In case you didn't take notes, issue a decision with those conditions incorporated into it. And that's all we need for tonight. Anything else we can do for you? I guess my one question is the conditions of approval for the driveway use agreement 30 days of this decision prior to the issuance of the zoning permit. Yeah. So once that agreement is submitted to the court, then we'll get the zoning permit? Yes. So it's just the one thing we can hold over to get it to make sure that you... And then all the other conditions are once we have our zoning permit we put apart. Exactly. And that stops from going forward without the approval. Proper agreement. Good. All right. Thank you. Thank you all very much. All right. The only other business is our next regularly scheduled meeting is for Monday, June 4th at 2018 and 7 p.m. Otherwise I will take it unless there's any other new business. Meredith, do you remember, do we have a DRB meeting on the 4th? We will... Because this all happened. Yes. Because I think... A sketch plan... He won't be in... He'll be in the next meeting after that because it takes 15 days to warn that meeting. So it's 14 days away. So I was pretty sure unless there was a continuous... Audra told me unless we continued an application, there will not be a DRB meeting for the... So... Put us to the 18. Put us to the 18. Okay. Well, nevertheless if something should emerge, unlikely as it is, I'll take a motion for adjournment. So moved. Motion by Kevin. Second. Second by Kate. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. We are adjourned.