►
From YouTube: Winooski Development Review Board - 11/17/2022
Description
00:00:00 Call to Order
00:01:10 Public Comment
00:01:42 Changes to the Agenda
00:01:55 Approve Previous Meeting Minutes
00:03:00 Public Hearing on Final Subdivision – 165 East Spring Street
00:42:34 Public Hearing on Site Plan Review – 1 Tigan Street
00:55:41 Sketch Plan Review – Planned Unit Development – 205 West Allen Street
01:19:58 City Updates
01:22:06 Other Business
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
All
right,
I'm,
not
sure
who's
in
the
room
right
now,
but
sounds
like
we
have
a
car
but
are
ready
to
go.
The
time
is
6
38
and
the
November
17th
2022
meeting
of
the
development
review
board
for
city
vludowski
has
been
called
to
order.
The
drb
is
a
quasi-judicial
volunteer
resident
board
that
upholds
standards
and
procedures,
as
defined
in
the
Winooski
zoning
ordinance.
A
We
review
and
make
decisions
on
subdivisions
site
plans
conditional
uses,
variances
and
appeals
of
the
zoning
administrator's
determinations
drb
has
virtual,
has
Authority
through
the
Vermont
state
statutes
and
endures
insurers
due
process
protects
the
rights
of
applicants
and
the
rights
of
the
public
to
participate
in
proposals
for
Land
Development
here
within
the
city
of
Winooski.
Appeals
of
decisions
made
by
this
board
are
heard
by
the
Vermont
Superior
Court
environmental
division
and
the
Vermont
Supreme
Court.
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
C
B
A
A
A
It's
a
public
hearing
on
for
final
plans
for
a
subdivision,
165
East
spring
streets
and
before
we
do
bring
people
up
to
to
speak,
we
do
want
to
swear
everybody
or
affirm
that
you
are
all
telling
the
truth
under
the
penalties
and
pains
of
perjury.
So
we
will
have
everybody
who
comes
to
speak
just
raise
your
hand
and
affirm
that
you
are
telling
the
truth.
B
So
the
applicant
and
representatives
are
in
the
room
here
and
another
member
of
their
team
is
online
as
well,
so
I'll
just
do
a
quick
introduction
and
if
you
guys
want
to
come
up
to
the
table.
So
this
is
a
final
subdivision
plan.
That's
before
you
tonight,
you've
previously
reviewed
this
as
a
sketch
plan
back
in
August
of
2021
and
as
a
preliminary
plan
back
in
June
of
this
year.
B
So
comments
were
provided
to
the
applicant
at
both
of
those
meetings,
and
the
applicant
has
addressed
the
comments
in
writing
in
in
the
application
materials
that
were
submitted
and
also
included
some
of
the
the
changes
on
the
plans
themselves.
So
this
is
for
both
the
subdivision
of
one
property,
sorry
creating
one
new
parcel
from
an
existing
property.
So
a
total
of
two
lots
there's
also
a
request,
as
we've
discussed
previously
for
a
dimensional
waiver
to
the
side
yard
setback
to
accommodate
the
existing
structure.
B
So
language
has
been
added
to
the
to
the
plan
set
that
we
discussed
at
our
last
meeting
and
was
included
in
the
the
findings
and
decision
on
on
that
preliminary
plan
related
to
what
that
waiver
is
really
for
and
what
the
intent
of
that
waiver
is
to
provide
providing
that
relief
in
the
application.
There
were
designs
shown
for
a
potential
development
on
the
new
lot
and
I
just
want
to
stress
again
that
this
is
not
a
review
of
that
development.
This
is
simply
a
review
of
the
subdivision
itself.
B
Any
future
development
of
the
property
would
have
to
come
forward
under
a
separate
application,
so
with
that,
I
will
turn
it
over
to
the
to
the
folks
in
the
room
to
to
provide
any
information
and
I
have
the
the
application
information
on
the
screen
that
I
can
share
as
well,
which
I'll
do
that
now.
Okay,.
D
A
D
D
D
So
that's
really
the
the
general
layout.
This
is
served
with
Municipal
Water
Municipal
sewer
existing
proposed
again
will
be
Municipal,
Water
Municipal
sewer
Eric.
Thank
you
for
changing
the
screen,
so
you
can
see
there
the
parking
for
lot
one
up
above
and
then
the
new
driveway
for
the
proposed
duplex
on
lot.
Two
and
again,
that's
really
just
showing
conceptual
plan
to
make
sure
that
we
could
fit
a
building
fit
parking
fit
a
driveway.
D
We
do
have
a
also
a
conceptual
grading
plan
that
makes
the
site
distances
for
that.
Driveway
work
we
did
again.
We
wanted
to
make
sure
that,
on
this
lot,
that
we
weren't
just
doing
a
subdivision
that
could
not
be
built.
We
wanted
to
make
sure
that
there
was
a
viable
project
here
again
that
actual
project
could
be
different
from
what
you
see
on
the
screen,
but
that
would
be
a
separate
approval
that
would
be
applied
for
at
a
later
date.
D
B
B
I
sorry
I
would
just
add
quickly
as
well
that
I
did
share
the
final
plan
with
our
emergency
services
and
Public
Works
departments.
I
did
not
hear
any
comments
back.
There
were
comments
on
the
preliminary
plan
that
were
shared
from
DPW
in
particular,
which
were
included
in
the
application
packet,
but
they
didn't
have
any
additional
comments
based
on
the
final
plan.
D
So
at
the
preliminary
meeting
that
we
had,
there
were
a
list
of
conditions
to
address
to
be
addressed,
so
I'll
go
through
those.
The
first
one
stated
provide
information,
including
the
identified
legal
opinion
supporting
the
continued
access
for
the
existing
two
unit,
dwelling
at
165
East
Spring
Street
from
the
access
identified
as
Norman
Court.
So
we
have
provided
a
title
opinion
from
Mr
Burnett's
attorney.
D
So
I'm
going
to
skip
to
item
2.,
we
did
submit
the
plans
to
Public
Works
and
Ryan
Lambert
from
the
Department
of
Public
Works.
He
did
have
a
couple
of
comments
on
there
and
that
was
really
about
the
conceptual
grading
plan,
because
some
of
the
grading
that
would
happen
for
that
driveway
for
the
Lot
2
driveway
will
actually
be
on
lot
one.
D
So
he
wanted
to
ensure
that
there's
both
a
construction
easement
for
that
work
to
happen,
but
then
also
a
maintenance
easement
just
to
make
sure
that
any
vegetation
can
be
cut
down.
Any
snow
can
be
removed
and
just
to
make
sure
that
any
future
owners
of
Lot
2
do
have
the
legal
right
to
make
sure
that
the
site
distances
are
maintained
in
perpetuity.
So
that's
certainly
something
that
will
be
that
will
be
provided.
Those
easements
will
be
part
of
this
plan.
D
Item
three
requested
that
we
submit
or
that
we
get
written
comments
from
the
City's
Fire
Department.
Regarding
the
use
of
Norman
Court,
we
did
have
contact
and
an
email
from
fire
chief
Audi,
and
we
did
provide
that
email
should
be
in
the
packet,
but
his
email
stated
regarding
the
existing
driveway
access
I
slash.
D
We
have
no
issues
as
long
as
the
reduced
width
and
height
standards
are
maintained
and
again,
that's
I
believe
a
when
he
says
the
reduced
standards
for
a
previous
project
on
Norman
Court,
the
fire
department
approved
a
certain
width
and
height
requirement,
that's
less
than
their
standards,
but
is
adequate
to
provide
protection.
So
he
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
would
be
maintained
and
it's
going
to
be
maintained
for
that
project,
so
we'll
be
maintained
for
this
project
as
well.
No
changes
are
being
proposed
and
the
fire
chief
was
fine
with
that.
C
D
F
D
With
the
concept
that
we
had
come
up
with
and
really
the
way
the
site
is
going
to
be
developed
best,
it
will
be
a
great
access
at
street
level
and
then
you
go
up.
The
first
floor
level
would
then
be
at
the
flat
area
roughly
the
same
elevation
as
the
first
floor
of
the
existing
duplex
moving
on
item
number
four
requested:
a
written
response
from
the
state
e911
office,
and
we
did
reach
out
to
the
e911
coordinator
and
the
new
lot
lot.
B
So
it's
There's
issues
with
addressing
in
in
the
city
in
General
on
in
some
areas
and
in
particular
in
this
location,
but
based
on
e911.
That
is
what
they
recommended
based
on
their
standards
for
addressing.
So
it
is
slightly
out
of
sync
and
out
of
sequence
there,
but
that's
what
they
have
recommended
for
for
this
property
for
the
new
lot
too.
C
B
G
C
D
F
D
Number
five
requested
additional
detail
on
the
methods
or
techniques
to
be
used
to
remove
portions
of
the
driveway
currently
serving
the
two
unit
dwelling
at
165,
East
Spring,
as
I
previously
mentioned,
the
current
driveway
and
parking
area
for
the
existing
duplex
is
partially
on
what
will
be
lot
two
so
that
driveway
coming
down
the
hill
is
going
to
get
removed.
So
we
did
revise
the
plans
to
add
some
notes
and
some
construction
details.
The
intent
is
to
put
that
back
to
a
natural
grass
state
on
that
hill.
D
D
So,
yes,
the
construction
for
that
will
be
accessed
off
of
Norman
Court,
as
is
allowed
for
the
the
legal
opinion
that
we
have,
and
certainly
any
damaged
done
if
any
damage
was
done
during
construction.
That
would
certainly
be
the
contractor's
responsibility
to
repair
that
to
the
condition
it
was
prior
to
their
work.
So
that's
certainly.
D
Six,
oh
I,
think
I,
actually
maybe
kind
of
combined.
Those
two
item
number
six,
actually
talks
about
provide
additional
detail
on
the
methods
or
techniques
to
be
used
for
re-vegetation
and
stabilization
of
the
existing
driveway.
So
that's
what
I
spoke
to
first,
when
I
mentioned
that
there
were
some
notes
and
construction
details
for
how
that
work
would
be
done.
D
Item
number
seven
provide
additional
details
on
the
proposed
stairs
that
will
facilitate
access
from
the
parking
area
and
the
garage
access
from
Norma
Court
to
the
existing
duplex.
So
we
we
did
provide
that
information.
We
have
some
spot
elevation
shown
on
the
plans
now
to
better
identify
that
and
briefly
it
would
be
a
set
of
wooden
stairs.
D
D
D
Plan
that
indicates
the
proposed
waiver
for
the
existing
two
unit
dwelling
will
provide
the
minimum
required
relief
to
bring
the
structure
into
compliance
with
the
city's
unified
land
use.
Development
regulations
in
this
waiver
is
only
to
be
granted
to
accommodate
the
existing
structure
in
its
current
configuration.
Any
future
changes,
alterations
or
modifications
to
the
existing
structure
will
require
additional
review
and
approval,
as
outlined
in
the
uludr,
based
on
the
proposed
changes
and
again
at
the
last
meeting,
there
were
just
a
few
comments
on
that
waiver
request.
D
Just
wanting
to
make
sure
that
by
granting
a
waiver
for
that
setback
reduction,
it
wasn't
granting
carp
launch
to
do
whatever
we
wanted
over
there.
It
was
really
just
to
Grant
a
waiver
for
that
existing
encroachment,
and
it's
on
the
plans
now,
so
that
anybody
looking
at
those
plans
understands
that
any
changes
are
not
covered
by
that
waiver.
That
would
be
you'd
have
to
come
in
for
separate
approval
if
any
additional
changes
were
being
requested.
D
Generally,
everything
looked
good.
We
were
in
agreement
with
mostly
everything.
I
did
just
want
to
comment
on
I
think
I
already
spoke
to
most
of
this.
That
I
was
going
to
comment
on
and
again
we
talked
to
the
fire
chief.
We
talked
to
DPW,
we
have
their
emails.
The
main
thing
I
just
wanted
to
bring
up
is
under
19
legal
requirements.
F
D
I
wanted
to
leave
the
possibility,
I,
don't
believe
we're
going
to
need
a
sanitary
sewer
easement,
but
the
sewer
out
there
is
a
little
iffy
as
to
location.
We
have
camera
the
lines
we
have
it
to
the
best
of
our
ability,
but
there
is
a
small
chance
that
a
sewer
easement
would
need
to
be
granted
as
well.
D
If
that's
required.
That
would
certainly
be
you
know
all
done
through
the
proper
channels,
but
I
just
wanted
to
mention
as
as
proposed.
It's
not
needed,
but
the
again
the
sewer
was
a
kind
of
a
mystery
out
there.
So
we
have
a
fairly
good
idea
as
to
where
it
is,
but
just
wanted
to
bring
up
that
possibility
that
that
easement
could
be
needed
depending
on
what
is
actually
found
when
they
start
digging
up
that
existing
sewer
pipe.
I
A
A
I
Been
specifically
referred
to
as
Norman
Court
and
it
indicated
the
26
foot.
Street
was
indeed
subject
to
that
right-of-way.
Interestingly
enough.
In
1959
there
there
must
have
been
a
disagreement
over
the
use
of
the
right-of-way
and
the
scope
of
the
right-of-way,
because
there
is
a
judgment
decree
that
was
reported
in
the
Winooski
land
records,
the
effect
of
which
verified
that
there
is
indeed
a
right-of-way
there,
and
if
the
court
decreed
that
the
the
right-of-way
is
indeed
25
feet
width.
I
Or
1959
seemed
to
put
to
rest
any
any
questions
as
to
whether
there
was
a
right-of-way
and
it
certainly
formally
established
the
width
of
the
right-of-way
and
as
far
as
the
scope
is
concerned,
the
scope
seems
to
have
been
established
back
in
1939
when
it
very
clear.
The
right-of-way
reservation
very
clearly
stated
that
it
was
for
all
purposes
to
and
from
Wood
Street.
So
that's
that's
just
a
very
brief.
F
A
A
D
So
lot
two
there's
kind
of
two
slopes
and
a
flatter
area.
Thank
you.
That's
so
you
can
kind
of
see
that
starting
at
the
kind
of
the
top
of
lot
two
there
is
a
slope
and
then
it
does
come
down
to
kind
of
where
the
the
cars
are
shown
in
the
new
duplex.
It
does
flatten
out
there
then
there's
atop
a
bank
that
is.
C
C
D
D
Her
geotechnical
investigation
and
Report
would
need
to
be
done
to
give
anybody
doing
the
development,
the
information
they
need
to
make
sure
that
they
control
those
slopes
or
any
construction
properly
and
again.
The
way
we
have
this
shown
there's
certainly
need
for
multiple
retaining
walls
on
this
property.
So
the
the
construction
on
the
slopes
would
be
managed,
One
Way,
during
construction.
There
would
be
requirements
for
how
to
deal
with
those
slopes,
but
then
the
ongoing
property.
D
D
Yeah
in
construction,
and
we
would
probably
be
recommending,
even
though
it's
a
smaller
project,
given
the
slopes,
we
would
probably
be
recommending
a
geotechnical
investigation
anyways
but,
like
I
said,
that's
in
our
conversations
with
Public
Works
they've
mentioned
that
that
would
be
required
for
for
development
on
this
property.
Great.
H
D
So
it
would
be
replanted
with
a
conservation
mix,
just
a
seed,
and
then
some
erosion
matting
put
down
there's
no
replanting
plant
as
far
as
any
actual
trees
or
shrubs.
It
is
just
Turf
would
be
growing
back
there,
so
it
would
be
replanted
as
grass,
but
no
no
additional
plantings
on
top
of
that
are
proposed.
B
C
B
I
I
just
have
one
question:
looking
at
the
feet,
C2
and
I
see
that
you
know
their
setback
lines
drawn
for
the
new
Lot
number,
two,
their
step
back
lines
drawn
for
the
original
Lot
number
one,
but
there's
there
are
not
setback
lines
drawn
for
the
new
Lot
number.
One
I'm
wondering
why
why
that
is.
If
that's
been
looked
at
with
the
you
know,
the
the
new
there's
no
setbacks
line
shown
for
the
new
property
line.
Basically,.
B
D
Did
one
yeah
I
think
we
may
have
turned
that
layer
off
and
can
certainly
turn
that
back
on
and
resubmit,
but
again
scaling
off
of
here.
It
does
appear
that
we
we
do
have
the
the
10
feet
required
and
that's
part
of
part
of
how
that
jog
in
the
property
line
between
the
new
lot
one
and
lot
two
was
to
make
sure
that
we
had
that
10
foot
setback.
But
we
can
certainly
confirm
that
and
add
that
setback
back
on
the
plans
I'm
not
sure,
quite
why
that
layer
was
or
that
the.
A
C
B
I
D
A
sure,
so
that
would
be
the
first
thing
they
would
be
allowed
to
re-grade
as
needed
to
provide
the
adequate
sight
distance.
Again
we
had
a
conceptual
grading
plan
that
showed
one
version
of
what
might
be
needed,
but
we
kind
of
show
there
is
an
easement
area
highlighted
that
you
can
see
on
this
plan.
It's
the
same
thickness
as
the
property
line,
it
kind
of
cuts.
D
Exactly
where
it
is
so,
any
grading
that
would
be
needed
would
be
in
there.
So
that
would
be
again
during
construction
to
make
sure
that
that
can
happen,
and
then
the
the
ongoing
easement
would
be
language
that
would
allow
the
that
area
to
be
maintained
to
allow
adequate
sight
distances.
So
that
could
be
mowing
weed
whacking
snow
plowing.
It's
plowing
on
this
little
but
shoveling
snow
removal,
so
anything
needed
to
ensure
that
the
sight
distance
remains
adequate.
D
F
D
It
was
just
because
it
was
a
recommendation
of
Public,
Works
I
think
it's
a
good
recommendation
again,
just
to
make
sure
that
you
know
in
the
future.
Somebody
doesn't
purchase
lot
one
and
say
oh
I,
wanna
plant
some
trees
on
that
Hill
slide
and
on
that
Hillside
and
now,
all
of
a
sudden,
the
site
distance
that
was
adequate,
is
no
longer
adequate.
So
I
think
it
was
a
good
catch
by
Public,
Works
yeah.
I
It
may
be
so
I
mean
they
can
just
plant
trees
a
little
bit
further
to
the
to
the
east
right
or
is
that
yeah
I
mean
there's
still
a
portion
of
that
whatever
you're
trying
to
to
do
there,
there's
a
portion
further
to
the
east
that
they
could
still
the
you
know,
lot
one
and
still
has
control
over
I.
Just
wonder
like
that
that
that's
an
easement
that
is
like
basically
right
up
to
the
edge
of
the
lot
one
structure
right
and
it's
easy
right
now
to
do
that
right.
D
I
G
D
D
I
D
At
this
time
they
are
you're
right.
You
know
really
that
could
be
that
the
permanent
easement
could
be
probably
half
of
that,
and
it
wouldn't
have
any
impact
on
the
site
distances.
So
that's
also
something
that
we,
we
could
clearly
show
two
separate
Eastman's
one
for
construction.
We'd
want
to
leave
ourselves
enough
of
a
buffer
on
that,
but
the
the
permanent
he's
met
can
certainly
be
reduced
without
any
impact
on
the
site
distances
in
the
future.
F
B
So
I
don't
believe
Ms
Ransom
you're,
not
you're,
not
here,
to
speak
about
this
correct.
Okay.
So
there's
no
one
in
the
room
and
Greg
I'm
guessing
you're.
Not
here
to
you,
don't
want
to
say
anything,
there's
no
one
in
the
room
to
speak
about
it,
but
we
do
have
Matt
Parisi
on
the
zoom.
So
Matt
you
can
go
ahead
and
unmute
yourself.
If
you'd
like
hi.
G
G
G
No
I'm
I'm
I'm,
as
the
subdivision
plan,
is
right
now,
I'm
100,
fine
with
it
I
think
it's
a
good
solution
for
a
piece
of
land,
that's
otherwise
unusable.
What
I'm
worried
about
is
if
and
when
it's
sold.
If
a
new
the
new
owner
decides
to
try
to
alter
these
plans,
is
there
any
recourse
once
that,
because
it
was
still
in
theory?
If
the
person
wants
to
build
a
duplex
or
a
single
family,
it
would
just
be
I
mean
an
administrative
permit.
B
G
B
G
So,
how
do
we,
how
do
we?
How
do
we,
what
I'm
worried
about,
because
I'm
I've
obviously
spent
a
lot
of
time
there
I'm
building
a
house
currently
right
behind
it?
It
is
a
significant,
significant
slope:
that's
in
the
bylaws
in
the
zoning
bylaws,
they
are,
whoever
buys
this
or
builds.
This
is
going
to
be
required
to
build.
G
A
I'm
hearing
nothing
saying
nothing,
I
think
it's
safe
to
move
on.
I
do
thank
the
applicant
I,
think
Jason
as
well
for
for
being
here
today.
We
typically
make
decisions
make
recommendations
in
deliberative
session.
Usually
that
happens
shortly
after
we
wrap
this
meeting
up
on
the
night
of
the
meetings.
Sometimes
it
happens
later,
but
we
will
make
sure
that
we
have
our
response
to
you
in
a
very
timely
manner.
So
thank
you
so
much.
B
B
A
B
Yes,
so
I'll
do
a
quick
introduction
here
with
Greg
Dixon
representing
the
applicant
of
one
Teigen
Street.
This
is
a
site
plan
review,
since
this
is
located
in
the
industrial
zoning
District.
It
requires
site
plan
review
from
the
development
review
board.
So
this
is
really
a
proposal
to
add
some
additional
parking
on
site,
but
with
that
I'll
let
Greg
provide
the
information.
J
J
I
am
here
on
behalf
of
jnf
LLC,
who
owns
the
building.
The
building
is
a
multi-attenant
building
that
is
currently
mostly
used
by
one
tenant,
especially
the
the
back
portion
of
it
and
what
they
do
is
they
buy
airplane
parts
and
then
sort
of
strip
them
down
and
resell
the
parts.
What
we
are
looking
to
do
is
that
they
need
more
space
to
store,
said
Parts,
as
well
as
delivery
of
those
parts
coming
in.
So
it
is
parking,
but
effectively
it
won't
be
vehicle
parking.
J
J
It's
a
pretty
straightforward
project
because
it
is
in
the
tiger
industrial
park.
It
is
part
of
a
an
existing
state.
Stormwater
permit,
as
well
as
an
existing
act.
250
permit
I
will
have
to
amend
both
of
those
permits,
even
though
I
we
just
amended
them
for
11
tiger
street,
but
such
seems
to
be
the
the
flow
of
the
industrial
park,
so
it'll
be
pretty
much
the
exact
same
process
that
I
did
before.
J
Obviously,
there's
no
changes
to
the
buildings,
no
changes
to
the
use
of
the
of
the
property,
no
interior
changes,
or
anything
like
that.
So
it's
strictly.
The
project
is
right
here.
What
we're
looking
at
I
didn't
have
too
much
more
to
add,
because
it
really
doesn't
affect
the
whole
lot
of
the
building
or
circulation
or
anything
like
that.
It
didn't
affect
a
whole
lot
of
the
land
regulations.
A
J
Is
going
to
be
gravel,
yeah,
there's
no
plan
to
pave
it.
That's
not
for
any
other
reason.
Besides,
they
just
don't
have
the
need
to
pave
it.
It's
not
permeable
or
anything
like
that.
We
might
consider
trying
to
do
that
once
we
get
into
the
storm
water
calculations,
but
with
the
Sands
that
are
on
site
that
I've
found
in
the
11
tiger
Street
project,
and
then
we've
also
gone
out
here
and
done
test
pit
and
two
perk
tests.
C
J
It
it
will
fill
in,
but
that
area
in
general
I
think
has
also
been
used
for
disposal
of
certain
items.
So
I
imagine
that
we
will
be
cleaning
that
all
up
and
actually
taking
it
out.
You
can
kind
of
see
where
the
Contours
start
to
I
believe.
Just
over
the
years
it's
been
used
as
a
bit
of
a
a
dump,
not
for
anything
it's.
It
looks
to
me
like
old,
concrete
old
asphalt
stuff
like
that.
C
B
That
I
was
yeah
earlier
before
here's
one
tygan
Street,
which
we're
talking
about
now.
So
it's
this
area
back
in
this
corner
here.
This
is
11
tiger,
which
we
just
did
a
site
plan
review
on
two
two
meetings
ago,
one
meeting
ago
so
part
of
the
industrial
park
and
then
Gateway
zoning
along
the
this
northern
part
of
Weaver
Street.
J
We
are
from
our
plans,
you
can
kind
of
see
I'm
going
to
add
like
a
bit
of
a
berm
at
the
top
of
that
parking
area
and
try
to
collect
everything
into
catch
Basin
and
then
bring
it
down
to
the
bottom.
We
first
thought
about
sending
it
over
just
over
the
edge,
but
I
was
worried
about
erosion
with
that
slope,
so
this
will
be
a
sort
of
deep
catch
Basin
and
then
a
pretty
shallowly
slope
pipe.
That
would
then
go
into
that
infiltration
Basin
at
the
bottom
of
the
hill.
J
J
See
the
grades
on
the
properties
along
weave
are
actually
quite
a
bit
higher,
so
everything
actually
drains
into
11
tiger
Street
and
their
storm
water
systems
are
connected.
You
can
kind
of
see
it
on
the
edge
of
11
tiger
street
that
pond
right
there.
That
Eric
has
his
hand
on
actually
takes
a
good
portion
of
the
storm
water
from
our
parcel.
J
J
E
C
J
J
Would
be
either
permanent
or
semi-permanent
I
think
how
that
Aerospace
company
works
is
they'll,
get
big
engines
and
they'll
slowly
take
them
apart,
filling
these
Conex
boxes
and
then
somebody
comes
and
just
takes
the
box
and
they
get
a
new
one.
I
believe
they
were
explaining
it
to
me,
but
it
was
going
over
my
head
a
little
bit
but
I
believe
that
is
their
plan,
but.
E
C
B
Well,
I
think
so
in
either
case
what
we'd
be
looking
at
is
both
the
height
which
they
would
be
based
on.
What
Greg
has
just
said:
they
would
be
below
the
maximum
height
and
its
impervious
cover.
Either
way
is
the
way
that
I
would
look
at
it
since
it's
not
a
an
engineered
material
to
to
be
pervious,
it's
still
lot
coverage,
so
they
are
below
the
maximum
lot
coverage
in
this
in
the
zoning
District,
so
in
either
in
either
direction.
It
doesn't
really.
B
B
I
see
yeah
yeah,
that's
an
interesting
question
and
Greg
and
I
talked
about
that
a
little
bit
with
the
the
setback
and
as
parking.
We
don't
have
anything
in
our
regulations
that
talk
about
that
parking
is
not
permitted
in
a
setback
it's,
but
for
structures.
Yeah
that
that
that
is
obviously
we
we
do
require
that
structures
are
not
located
in
the
setbacks,
so
I
think
it's.
It's
really
kind
of
a
I
think
it
depends
on
what
the
the
intent
here
is.
B
If
it's
a
structure
with
a
foundation,
it's
would
be
viewed
one
way
this
I
may
even
view
as
a
temporary
structure
if
it
was
in
considered
that
so
or
an
accessory
structure
as
well,
since
it's
not
part
of
the
primary
which
would
be
a
reduced
setback,
I
believe
in
this
District
as
well.
So
actually
let
me
look
at
that.
So
yeah.
That's
a
good
question,
though,.
B
A
I'm,
taking
around
a
little
bit,
I
I
seem
to
remember
reading
something
or
hearing
something
that
if,
if
whatever
it
is,
is
considered
portable,
then
it's
not
a
structure.
It's
not
a
structure
as
far
as
the
legal
terms,
at
least
that's
that
was
my
understanding
from
several
years
ago,
but
interesting.
A
B
B
B
A
B
The
truth,
so
let
me
jump
in
here,
quick
if
I
may
so
this
is
this
is
not
on
for
a
public
hearing
tonight.
This
is
just
for
a
sketch
plan
review.
This
is
being
proposed
as
a
planned
unit
development
which
requires
it
come
forward
first,
as
a
sketch
plan.
So
we
were.
This
is
not
a
formal
hearing,
anything
that
comes
out
of
this.
We
will
provide
comments
to
the
applicant
on
on
the
sketch
plan
that
are
non-binding.
The
applicant
can
choose
to
include
those
comments
or
ignore
those
comments
if
they
want.
B
However,
what
the
next
step
would
be
a
preliminary
plan
or
a
preliminary
final
plan,
that's
one
of
the
items
we
would
discuss
as
part
of
the
sketch
plan
review
when
they
do
come
forward
if
they
do
come
forward
with
a
future
preliminary
or
preliminary
final
plan.
That
will
require
a
formal
public
hearing
with
notification
to
the
adjacent
Property
Owners
via
certified
mail
posting
of
the
property
everything
else
we
do
for
a
sketch
plan.
We
notify
the
adjacent
Property
Owners,
but
it's
not
via
certified
mail.
B
J
J
J
The
original
intention
was
actually
to
subdivide
this
property
in
half
similar
to
some
of
the
other
properties
on
West
Allen
Street,
as
you
can
see
the
property
next
to
it's
about
the
same
size
that
would
have
been
possible
with
the
0.4,
because
it
would
have
met
the
minimum
area
for
subdivision,
but
with
0.25.
It
does
not
meet
the
minimum
four
subdivision,
so
we
were
not
able
to
subdivide
the
property,
which
is
what
was
originally
the
the
client's
plan
for
the
project.
E
J
J
You
still
can
only
have
three
dwelling
units,
and
so
that
is
all
we
are
asking
for
to
start
this.
We
would
leave
the
existing
building
in
place
and
then
we
would
build
two
other
buildings
on
the
property
and
they
would
sort
of
share
access
and
share
some
parking
and
some
Community
spaces
and
outdoor
amenities
and
stuff
like
that.
But
these
would
be
three
separate
units
that
then
could
also
be
condominiumized
to
then
be
sold
separately
as
well.
Obviously
that
would
be
a
condo
plan.
They
would
have
an
HOA
very
similar
to
other
condos.
J
We
have
to
abide
by
the
most
stringent
setback
in
this
District,
that
is,
a
15-foot
front,
yard
setback,
and
so
we
just
use
15
feet
for
all
front
side
and
rear,
and
we
feel
that
that
this
we
we
had
some
other
ideas
that
Eric
and
I
looked
at,
having
multiple
curb
cuts
that
that
wasn't
really
going
to
work
and
then
multiple
iterations
sort
of
through
everything.
But
this
is
sort
of
a
idea
that
we
we
kept
coming
back
to.
B
So
two
other
just
two
other
things
to
point
out
with
this
one.
As
you
can
see,
the
existing
curb
cut
is
being
shifted,
so
that
is
permitted.
They
are
allowed
to
have
one
curb
cut
per
property
in
this
case,
they're
moving
it
from
the
east
side
of
the
existing
house,
where
it
Services
a
garage
as
well
in
the
back.
The
garage
is
being
removed
and
they're
relocating
that
curb
cut
to
more
I'd,
say
more
centrally
on
the
property.
B
The
other
item,
along
with
this
is
this,
is
this:
existing
dwelling
is
within
the
front
setback
I,
believe
it's
in
the
front
setback
even
under
under
existing
conditions
as
well.
So
it's
a
pre-existing
non-conforming
structure
based
on
the
setback,
so
we'd
be
looking
for
a
waiver
to
the
front
yard
setback
for
that
existing
structure.
The
the
proposed
new
structures
are
within
the
15-foot
setbacks,
which
are
required
around
the
entire
perimeter
of
the
property.
B
B
Yeah
I
think
it
was
part
of
an
original
there's,
actually
a
little
historic
district
in
this
area,
there's
about
10
or
12
properties
that
are
included
in
it,
because
it's
an
old
worker
kind
of
worker
house,
Mill,
Mill,
Village
type
of
area.
It's
all
there's
all
the
houses
are
basically
the
same
base
house
and
then
they've
been
added
on
to
over
the
years.
But
you
can,
if
you
look
at
them,
you
can
see
a
very
distinct
architectural
pattern
of
the
houses
in
this
area,
but
this
one's
not
included
this
one
is
included.
B
C
B
J
Again,
this
is
very
preliminary.
Our
hope
is
minimum.
Three,
that's
sort
of
one
of
the
positive
aspects
that
we're
hoping
to
bring
to
the
board
is
that
these
will
all
be
three
to
four
bedrooms.
We're
hoping
for
four
I
did
a
really
quick
sort
of
SketchUp
plan
for
the
team
on
square
footage
that
could
possibly
be
yielded
with
the
two
new
houses
and
I
thought.
I
could
maybe
get
about
2
000
to
2200
square
feet
of
living
space,
which
would
be
pretty
substantial,
single
family,
home.
B
So
with
it
with
a
plan
unit
development,
what
we
do
is
we
look
at
the
total
area
of
the
property
and
determine
how
many
individual
Lots
based
on
our
maximum
sorry,
based
on
our
minimum
square
footage
you
can,
you
can
create
out
of
that
square
footage.
We
don't
take
into
account
setbacks
with
that
or
other
infrastructure.
It's
it's
purely
based
on
the
square
footage
of
the
existing
property
and
how
many
Lots
in
this
case,
the
minimum
lot
size,
is
7
500
square
feet.
B
So
you
take
the
number
of
lots
that
you
can
create
off
that
property,
and
then
you
take
the
total
number
of
units
that
are
allowed
in
on
each
lot
in
that
District.
So
this
is
in
the
residential
sea
zoning
District,
which
allows
up
to
three
three
units
per
lot.
So
that's
how
you
get
your
base,
that's
how
you
get
your
maximum
allowable
density
for
the
property.
Now
that
has
to
be
balanced
with
the
lot
coverage,
so
we
still
enforce
the
maximum
lock
coverage.
B
So
in
this
case
they,
while
I,
don't
know
the
calculations
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
say
they
were
allowed
to
do.
Eight
Lots
or
sorry,
eight
eight
dwellings
on
this
property.
They
may
not
be
able
to
get
all
eight
because
the
the
maximum
lock
coverage
is
still
50
percent,
so
they
have
to
work
within
the
the
maximum
lot
coverage,
as
well
as
the
overall
configuration
of
the
property.
So
as
a
planned
unit
development,
they
can
develop
any
of
the
types
of
dwellings
that
are
permitted
in
that
District.
B
B
So
we
only
allow
for
single
and
two
unit.
Currently
in
the
in
the
residential
seat.
We
do
have
a
provision
for
priority
housing
that
does
allow
for
multi-unit
developments
in
the
residential
zoning
districts,
but
it
requires
I
believe
it
requires
both
three
three
bedrooms
per
unit
and
the
units
have
to
be
affordable.
B
E
J
J
B
Yeah
so
based
on
the
lot
size,
they
can
only
get
one
lot,
one
full
building
lot
at
7
500
square
feet,
there's
about
10
000
little
over
ten
thousand,
almost
eleven
thousand
square
feet,
so
they
can
only.
They
still
only
have
one
building
lot,
so
they
can
do
a
maximum
of
three
units
configured
as
single
units
or
two
units,
because
they're
proposing
to
do
it.
In
this
configuration
through
the
plan
unit
development,
they
can
do
them
as
three
individual
single
unit
dwellings
that
can
then
be
sold
individually
through
through
condominiumized
of
the
property.
J
J
This
is
mostly
a
bit
of
a
fact-finding
exercise
at
the
time
and
I
think
they'd
hire
on
an
architect
and
and
really
better
illustrate
what
we
would
plan
to
do
with
those
next
two
buildings,
but
connectivity
between
the
three
buildings,
I
I,
don't
see
that
being
a
I
feel
like.
We
definitely
want
to
do
that
and
be
happy
to
do
something
along
those
lines.
A
A
D
B
K
K
These
houses
aren't.
They
are
very
strong.
I,
don't
know
how
that
construction?
If
there's
going
to
be
any
blasting
or
right
now,
the
train
track
runs
right
behind
us
every
time
the
train
goes
by
my
house
shakes
so
I
think
it's
great
that
you're
good
at
thinking
about
moving
the
driveway
to
the
other
side,
but
I
have
to
have
a
little
bit
of
privacy,
a
fence
or
some
barrier.
K
K
B
K
J
B
B
Corporation
so
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
Aaron
and
Matt.
If
you
could
hear
what
Greg
was
just
saying,
but
he
they
haven't
done
a
formal
survey
of
the
property.
Yet
so
that's
what
what's
what's
shown
here
is
just
some
general
information
based
off
of
tax
maps
and
some
some
brief
research
of
the
the
town
records,
but
that
would
they
would
need
to
do
a
formal
boundary
survey
with
the
with
a
preliminary
submission.
A
K
K
A
H
C
A
C
It
seems
to
me
that
if
this
is
approached
correctly,
it
could
actually
benefit
you,
because
the
garage
will
be
taken
off
that
side.
The
driveway
would
be
moved
to
the
middle,
and
it's
about
depend.
You
know
this
is
just
a
preliminary
suggestion,
but
it
could
be
done
so
that
the
entry
to
all
the
to
that
back
unit
is
off
the
center.
Rather,
it
looks
like
it's
showing
off
the
side.
G
K
I
say
I
say
yes,
I
mean
I,
think
it's
great,
except
for
the
driveway
privacy
part.
So
I
think
it
would
benefit
me
if
they
moved
the
driveway,
because
right
now
we
can
see
each
other
into
each
other's
house,
which
is
fine,
I
mean
as
long
as
the
same
people
are
normal
people
are,
you
know
looking
and
if
the
driveway
moves,
then
they
wouldn't
be
using
that
side
of
the
house
to
try
to
make
it
shorter
for
them.
They'd
go
around.
J
E
K
A
B
The
only
update
that
I
have
for
you
is
an
item
that
I
just
learned
about
today.
You
may
recall
there
was
a
proposal
for
a
detached
Cottage
on
George
Street
some
years
ago
that
we
reviewed
multiple
times.
That
was
that
we
I
believe
denied
both
times
it
came
before
us
and
then
the
third
time
it
came
before
us.
We
denied
it
based
on
successive
application,
Doctrine
that
was
appealed
to
the
environmental
Court
by
the
applicants.
The
neighbors
entered
appearance
in
that
as
well
to
to
take
an
opposing
position.
B
I
just
got
word
today
that
the
environmental
Court
is
granting
the
appeal.
So
basically
they,
the
environmental
Court
agreed
with
the
applicants
that
that
project
was
consistent
with
our
regulations
and
would
meet
the
standards
for
conditional
use
approval,
so
I'm
I'm
just
waiting
to
get
the
the
official
word
from
the
court
and
the
the
update
I
believe
there
was
an
updated
plan
that
went
along
with
it,
so
that
will
be
potentially
going
forward.
So
that
won't
come
back
to
you
at
all.
You
won't
see
that
again.
C
B
And
I
know
somebody
asked
about
that
not
too
long
ago
where
that
stood,
but
that's
so
the
courts
are
moving
slow
as
as
they
they
tend
to
do.
But
that's
okay,
they're
thorough
and
it
is
a
as
as
it's
known
a
de
novo
review,
so
they
basically
start
everything
over
there's.
No,
we
are
not
what
they
call
on
the
record
review,
so
our
testimony
and
our
deliberations
basically
don't
exist
when
it
goes
forward
to
the
environmental
Court
they
start
over.
At
the
beginning,.
A
B
Any
other
business,
the
only
other
other
business
that
I
would
note
is
that
our
next
meeting
is
currently
scheduled
for
December
15th.
The
deadline
to
make
that
agenda
is
tomorrow.
I
have
not
had
any
discussions
with
anybody
about
any
materials
that
they
need
to
come
forward
to
you
all.
So
presuming
nothing
comes
in
tomorrow.
I
would
recommend
that
we
cancel
that
meeting
foreign.
B
The
only
thing
that
we
may
have-
and
I
probably
should
have
put
it
on
tonight's
agenda-
is
just
our
review
schedule,
our
our
submission
schedule
for
next
calendar
year,
so
I
believe
that's
something
that's
more
of
an
administrative
thing
that
I
can
just
circulate
after
the
fact,
and
then
we
can
get
that
posted.
So
folks
know
what
what
those
deadlines
are.
A
Perfect,
all
right,
so
the
time
is
now
801..
Is
everybody.
Okay,
jumping
into
deliberative
session
tonight
should
I
try
keep
going
yeah.
Okay!
That
being
said,
why
don't
we?
Why
don't
we
reconvene
on
the
private
Zoom
Link
at
8,
10.,
give
ourselves
a
10
minute?
Break
and
I
will
entertain
a
motion
to
adjourn.