►
From YouTube: Burlington Development Review Board - 2/21/2023
Description
Agenda: https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/sites/default/files/Agendas/2023%20022123%20Agenda.pdf
https://linktr.ee/townmeetingtv
00:00:00 Call to Order/Agenda
00:00:26 Communications
00:00:32 Minutes
00:00:44 655 Spear Street (I, Ward 6S) UVM State Agricultural College / Claire Forbes
00:01:50 126 College Street (FD6, Ward 3C) Investors Corporation of VT / Julia Booth
00:30:12 98 Sunset Cliff Road (RL-W, Ward 4N) Keye & Lucy Wong / Elizabeth Herrmann
This video belongs to http://www.cctv.org and published with permission under Creative Commons License CCTV Center for Media & Democracy Programming is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
It's
important
to
note
that
second
floor
tenants
have
a
much
smaller
Dimension
allowable
for
wall
signs
upper
floor.
Tenants
do
have
an
option
for
either
a
directory
sign
or
a
window
sign
or
a
door
sign
a
window
sign
in
a
door
for
stairs
leading
upstairs,
but
otherwise
are
not
permissible.
Wall
signs
are
not
permissible
for
anything.
B
Over
the
second
floor,
the
applicant
has
raised
an
opportunity
about
a
maximum
area
for
wall
signs
and
believes
that
they
are
subject
to
those
those
standards,
but
it
does
not
make
sense
to
utilize
those
dimensional
standards
which
would
be
15
percent
or
200
square
feet
maximum
for
the
entire
building.
It
simply
doesn't
make
sense
that
a
fourth
floor
tenant
could
get
more
signage
than
a
first
or
second
floor
tenant,
so
the
application
was
administratively
denied
and
the
applicant
has
appealed
in
a
timely
manner.
A
D
B
D
F
H
G
B
B
H
B
H
B
B
E
B
F
G
Tom
from
design
science,
so
if
this
is
denied
what
are
our
options?
It's
not
clear
as
to
the
verbiage
in
that
letter
today
as
to
what
path
we
have
to
take
to
make
everybody
happy
icv,
Vermont
law,
myself:
what
can
we
do
to
proceed
forward?
That
would
be
permissible
for
an
option
for
everybody.
Well,
I'll,
just
note
that
we
haven't
denied
anything
yet
so
it.
G
Are
other
tenants
that
are
above
the
second
floor?
I'm
actually
have
several
of
these
in
the
works
right
now
and
we'll
probably
be
talking
again,
but
is
something
probably
isn't
for
the
drb,
but
for
planning
or
somebody
that
conversation
why
it
happened
in
2019.
What
what
caused
that
change?
I'm,
not
quite
sure,
but
there
are
other
tenants
that
are
going
to
be
looking
for
space
on
wall
signs
and
it
doesn't
have
to
be
to
the
same
size
or
standard
of
the
first
floor
tenant.
G
B
A
D
Like
this,
if
you
looked
at
the
signed
ordinance,
it
would
give
you
some
guidance.
You
know,
for
instance,
it
says
individual
signs
may
vary
from
locational
standards
of
the
article.
However,
no
individual
Sign
May
exceed
the
maximum
error
limitations
of
the
specified
type,
so
you've
got
some
guidance
in
here.
It's
not
like
you've
got
nothing
to
go
by
and.
G
D
K
D
L
G
C
C
We
don't
see
anything
within
the
with
the
provision
7.1.2.13
that
prevents
having
a
fourth
floor
wall
sign,
there's
just
no
language
in
there
at
all.
This
has
a
fourth
floor.
Tenant
can't
have
a
wall
sign.
There
is
a
list
in
that
section
of
prohibited
signs
and
fourth
floor.
Tenances
are
not
listed
on
there
as
prohibited
signs,
so
we
don't
see
any
language
that
prevents
a
fourth
floor
tenant
from
having
a
wall
sign.
There
is
language
that
specifically
references
first
floor
and
second
floor
tenant
signs,
but
there's
nothing
that
prevents
a
fourth
floor
sign.
C
So,
given
that
ambiguity
and
given
how
important
this
is
in
providing
Legal
Services
through
underrepresented
individuals
in
Burlington,
we
ask
you
to
allow
us
to
have
a
sign
of
some
size
at
the
wall
level.
It
is
truly
the
reason
that
we
got
and
pursued
the
space,
and
we
think
it
will
only
benefit
Burlington
to
have
our
increased
presence
in
Burlington
we
plan.
We.
C
We
hope
that
the
wall
sign
will
allow
for
foot
traffic
for
those
that
need
legal
services
and
we
we
also
think
that
having
a
presence
of
Vermont
law
school,
the
state's
only
Law
School
in
Burlington
is
helpful
to
the
city
overall.
So
those
are
our
main
arguments
in
support
of
a
finding
that
we
could
have
a
fourth
floor
wall
sign.
Anything
to
add.
M
No
just
that
we
were
very
disappointed.
We
couldn't
have
a
sign
and
I
I
want
to
stress
that
we
we
moved
to
Burlington
with
a
wall
sign
and
I
think
it
was
on
St,
Paul
Street.
It
was
very
effective
and
creating
a
good
atmosphere
at
the
law
school
in
our
community,
and
so
we,
this
this
sign,
is
very
important
to
us
now
upon
moving
there.
You
know,
we
understand
that
you
know
Burlington
is
facing
you
know
a
short
I
mean
a
hard
to
rent
office
space.
C
M
G
M
C
F
N
Jim
Langan
from
dinzi
yeah
I
just
want
to
make
a
couple
points.
I
guess
in
response
to
the
to
the
staff
report,
I
agree
with
the
staff
report
that
the
wall
signs
need
to
comply
with
the
standards
that
are
written
and
as
I've
heard
from
the
board
and
was
stated
before.
There
is
no
prohibition
on
on
wall
signs
based
on
the
tenant,
tenant,
location.
N
I
read
the
the
regulation
here
as
as
providing
three
sets
of
specifications
for
for
height
for
depth
and
for
area
for
the
first
two
for
the
height
and
the
depth.
There's
no
mention
of
the
location
of
the
tenant
for
what
what
the
required
height
or
the
depth
would
be,
and
so
I
read
those
as
for
the
height
and
for
the
depth.
There's
no
tenant
based
requirement
for
the
sign
there.
N
There
is
a
mention
of
tenant
location
for
area
and
so
we're
not
requesting
that
no
standard
for
area
be
assigned
because
we're
not
first
or
second
floor,
we're
just
asking
that
that
it
be
accepted
and
the
the
denial
said
no,
no
signs
at
all
for
fourth
floor
tenant
and
so
I.
Don't
think
that's
what
the
regulations
say.
M
F
F
H
Jim
I'm,
struggling
with
the
ordinance
I
mean
we
have
many
buildings
where
there
are
many
floors
and
so
like
it
just
seems
strange
to
me
to
think
that
he
wouldn't
have
addressed
the
other
floors
like
the
ordinance
was
drafted
in
a
way
to
address
the
first
and
second
floor
and
and
the
Assumption
applied
or
not.
Is
that
beyond
that,
there's
no
sign
allowed
otherwise
you'd
be
talking
I
mean.
Do
you
need
to
talk
about
every
single
floor?
Well,.
N
It's
just
the
if
the
intention
is
for
it's
just
the
identity
like
where
you're
renting
space
within
the
building
seems
to
really
have
no
point
to
the
regulations
like
why
that
matters
to
you
know
it's.
It's
not
even
mentioned
in
the
height
requirement,
but
but
it's
mentioned
in
the
area
requirement,
which
seems
odd,
I
I.
You
know
admittedly
struggled
reading
it.
A
G
D
D
Follow
this
design
precedent,
not
in
terms
of
seism
in
terms
of
style
and
everything
else,
which
is
nothing
wrong
with
that.
But
it
is
that's
the
whole
intent
of
a
master
plan
that
Master
science
permit
is
that
if
you
do
have
multiple
tenants,
you
sort
of
set
up
the
the
criteria
at
the
beginning,
but
in
a
way
you'll
be
doing
it
almost
retroactively.
But
if
we
did
approve
this,
that
other
tenants
would
be
expected,
it
would
seem
to
follow
this
style.
I.
N
M
B
B
G
A
J
K
I'm,
a
master's
student
in
restorative
justice
at
Vermont
law
and
graduate
school
I
work
closely
with
Professor
Jill
Martin
Diaz
who's,
the
lead
attorney
at
the
Vermont
immigration
assistance,
which
is
located
at
126
College
Street
in
shares
space
with
Vermont
laws,
Burlington
Office
of
Admissions
and
I
am
speaking
to
advocate
for
the
inclusion
of
this
proposed
sign.
While
the
denial,
the
initial
denial
is
based
on
article
7's
Provisions.
It
has
been
stated
that
those
limitations
mentioned
first
and
second
floors
and
not
fourth
floors,
but
this
has
all
been
previously
discussed.
K
So
I
actually
want
to
talk
about
the
human
impact
that
the
lack
of
this
signage
causes,
so
the
building
at
126,
College
Street,
is
set
further
back
than
the
other
buildings
on
the
Block.
So
it's
harder
to
find
the
first
time
I
went
to
the
office
for
a
client
meeting.
I
had
to
walk
up
and
down
the
block
twice
to
find
the
building
and
more
than
one
student
since
has
commented
to
me
that
it's
sketchy
that
they
never
would
have
found
the
building.
K
If
somebody
who
was
familiar
with
the
location
hadn't
been
with
them
at
the
time,
so
if
this
building
is
hard
for
Law
and
graduate
students
to
locate,
I
can
only
imagine
how
difficult
it
would
be
for
Burlington's,
low-income,
English
learning
immigrant
population
who
need
free
legal
help,
how
hard
difficult
it
would
be
for
them
to
find
the.
As
stated
this
office
houses,
the
Vermont
immigration
assistance
project,
where
Burlington
immigrants
can
meet
with
no
cost
legal
counsel
because
they
have
been
unable
to
find
the
building.
K
K
D
K
I
mean
yes,
it
does,
it
does
say:
126,
like
I
said
it
is
set
back
further.
I
think
that
that
is
is
possibly
a
part
of
it
and
because
the
walls
kind
of
jut
out
I
think
that
that's
a
big
purpose
for
having
that
that
wall
sign
but
yeah
it
was.
It
was
difficult
for
me
and
I
am
proficient
in
Google
Maps.
G
J
True-
and
it's
just
a
generally
kind
of
you
know
that
kind
of
environment,
locking
up
you
have
to
be
facing
this:
the
building
dead
on
to
see
the
numbers,
it's
reflective
and
imposing
you're
an
English
learning
person,
who's,
experienced
trauma
and
is
coming
to
my
office,
not
to
talk
about
good
things
and
and
it's
it's
been
difficult
for
folks
to
find
us
and
the
only
thing,
I'll,
add
I,
think
Misha's.
Testimony
was
so
spot
on,
just
as
a
Burlington,
homeowner
and
taxpayer
and
resident
and
program
manager.
J
I'm
really
proud
that
my
city
is
devoting
so
many
resources
to
promoting
equity
and
inclusion
and
belonging
for
Vermont's
diverse
population
in
Burlington's,
diverse
population
Burlington
is
home
to
almost
three
quarters
of
the
state's
non-citizen
population.
Our
program
is
the
only
free
legal
help
that
this
population
relies
on
this.
This
isn't
work
that
Vermont
legal
aid
or
legal
services
Vermont
provides
and
I
think
this
is
a
great
opportunity
to
look
past
the
rigid
rule
of
law
you're.
J
Looking
at
these
words
and
thinking
the
words
are
they're,
not
providing
us
with
the
pathway
that
we
need
to
achieve
the
just
result.
That's
exactly
what
equity
and
inclusion
requires.
It
requires
us
to
look
at
the
human
impact
and
to
push
the
rigidity
of
words
when
they're
not
serving
us
with
just
outcomes.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
O
Scott's,
memorandum
of
the
previous
Advisory
board
meeting
but
I'll
just
sort
of
summarize
quickly,
The
Proposal
I,
represent
the
owner's
key
and
Lucy
Wong
I'm
Elizabeth
Hermann
I'm,
the
architect
on
the
project.
The
Proposal
is
to
remove
the
existing
house
at
the
property
and
and
build
a
New
Home
Instead.
The
our
proposal
pushes
the
house
quite
a
bit
further
away
from
the
lake
to
alleviate
some
of
the
give
us
more
space.
I
mean
we
get.
O
O
It
has
a
tunnel
that
the
owner
fashioned
I,
don't
know
when,
but
it's
a
50-foot
Subterranean
tunnel
that
pops
out
on
on
the
lake,
it's
something
we
want
to
remove
and
replace
with
something
that
is
above
ground
so
other
than
that
I
I,
think
we,
you
probably
read
on
the
report
as
well,
that
the
conservation
board
asked
for
a
bit
more
information.
I
think
we
have
Seth
Goddard
here
from
Cubs
and
Lansing,
who
can
tell
you
a
little
bit
about
storm
water
management
and
the
progress
that's
been
made
there.
O
D
L
Yeah
sure
I'll
come
up
I'm
Seth
Goddard,
with
Krebs
and
Lansing
the
civil
engineer
on
the
job,
so
the
conservation
board
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
stormwater
was
being
treated
properly
on
the
site,
and
so
after
the
meeting
we
went
out
and
did
some
soil
tests
test
holes
and
the
soils
on
the
site
was
pretty
crappy.
It
was
fill
soil
and
below
it
was
Clay,
so
infiltration
is
not
possible
on
this
site.
L
So
what
we're
doing
is
a
bio
retention,
that's
designed
to
under
drain
to
treat
the
water
quality
storm
along
with
other
disconnection
practices,
which
is
really
typical.
In
this
section
of
when
you're
abutting
the
lake,
we
have
submitted
a
plan
and
design
plan
and
in
application
to
the
city,
storm
Water
Division,
so
we're
just
waiting
for
our
response
from
them
to
finalize
the
plan.
So.
L
L
L
F
O
O
Ed
today
that
had
a
few
minor
changes
from
our
last
iteration
that
was
posted,
and
so
we
removed
that
old
version
and
replaced
it
earlier
today.
There's
some
small
changes
in
the
lot
size
calculation
that
Seth
can
tell
you
about.
The
lot
is
actually
bigger
than
what
was
previously
stated
and
the
setbacks
are
13
feet,
not
14
right.