 Okay, it's seven o'clock. I think we will convene the meeting. Good evening, everyone. My name is Dawn Filibert. Welcome to the Development, South Burlington Development Review Board of May 4th, 2021. I'll be sharing tonight's meeting and with me tonight are DRB members, Mark Bear, myself, Alyssa Eyring, Jim Langen, Stephanie Wyman and Dan Albrecht. In addition, in attendance from the city of South Burlington is Marla Keane, our Development Review Planner and Delilah Hall, our Zoning Administrator. So you all have the agenda in front of you. Let's dive into it. And I'm wondering if anyone has any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items. Hearing none, I will move on to announcements. I have a couple. First of all, I want to let people know that Brian Sullivan, who has been a member of the DRB for a while, has had to resign from the board. We will miss Brian. He always was, I always appreciated his view of social justice and his legal expertise. So we will miss him and thank you for your service, Brian. Now, the city council is in the process of reviewing applications and interviewing prospective board members. So we hope at some point soon we'll have another board member. Let's see, I'm looking at my notes, but I'm not on the right page. The other announcement I'd like to make is one of the things that's been happening lately and because of some of the real kind of controversial projects we've been reviewing, there's been a lot of chat in the chat box. And unfortunately, the chat that goes on there is not part of the public process, the public record. So we would really ask people if you have comments, save them from the public comment or submit them in writing, but please try to avoid talking back and forth between public members because that's really no different than at a meeting people talking in the background and it's pretty disruptive. We'll save the chat for registering as an interested party and also if there's any technical issues, like, I can't hear you folks or something like that. So thank you for respecting our continued attempt to make this as efficient and open to everyone as possible. Are there any comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda? Dawn, I would just like to add a note that we had discussed and I will be adding to the agenda in the future. We would ask that if you are not participating in an item, that you leave yourself on mute and that you leave your camera off. If you wish to participate during the public comment portion, turning your camera on at that time is a good way to, and for us that you wish to say something, but leave your camera off. It helps keep a cleaner screen for the board and the applicants so we know what to look at when people are speaking. Great, thank you, Marla. A couple of other reminders. Thank you for those in attendance, those on the phone and those watching online. This meeting is being recorded. Anyone who wishes to participate in the hearing should sign the virtual sign-in sheet in the chat box. Please indicate you have a comment by saying your name or write in the chat box that you would like to ask a question or write your question in the chat box. And probably we should do that project by project. So we have a sense of who wants to make public comments for Project X, Y, Z versus A, B, C. Anyone on the phone that would like to sign in can send an email to Marla Keane at m-k-e-e-n-e at s-burl.com and provide your contact information. This is necessary in order to be considered a participant should you want to obtain party status in order to appeal a decision made by this board. You can also submit comments in writing. Marla's already talked about muting your phone and turning off your audio or video unless you're trying to speak. So with that, we will move to our first application or first agenda item for review. And that is sketch plan application, SD 2112 of Snyder Braverman Development Company, LLC to subdivide an existing 11.9 acre lot into four lots of 9.4 acres, lot L, 1.0 acres lot M4, 1.2 acres lot M5 and 0.04 acres lot M6 for the purpose of constructing projects on each of lots M4, M5 and M6, which will be reviewed under separate site plan application at 311 Market Street. So I would remind people that this is a sketch plan application which is a very high level overview of the project to give the board a sense of what the applicant wants to do so that the board can give summary general and high level feedback to the applicant that they can take into consideration as they submit subsequent applications in the process. So this is a sketch plan application and who is here for the applicants? This is Ken Braverman representing Snyder Braverman on being joined with Chris Snyder, my business partner, Andy Rowe from Lemarone Dickinson as well as Tim McKenzie from South Brooklyn Realty. Thank you, board for allowing us some extra time to go over this plan at the sketch plan level and we look forward to discussing the project. Okay, so we are thinking this is probably going to be a very brief discussion and I don't have the staff comments in front of me. So would one of you like to give us a very brief overview of where you are at this point in terms of the application? Don, this is Stephanie. I just want to let you know I have to be refused from this item so I'm not going to have a boy at this time. Okay, thank you, Stephanie. We'll see you in a few minutes. Thank you. Okay, applicant. Who is going to provide us an overview of where you are at this point? Keeping it very brief, please. We have a big agenda tonight. I'm going to hand it over to McKenzie who represents the landowner. Sure. Hi, Tim. Hi, good evening. Thank you. If you recall at the last meeting there was the discussion is about connecting our property, the city center property to the Dumont Park property and separating the two is a wetlands corridor. And through prior discussions, the city had requested and we had agreed to provide to give the wetlands corridor so that they could expand their park into that corridor and have a bridge, a boardwalk with bridges connecting to our property through the application process. The city is now asking that, at least in the prior staff notes was asking that we pay for the connections of the bridges. And our intention was that the connection is to the edge of the park of which we had agreed to grant that wetlands corridor to the city. So taking it up from there in staff notes, staff notes indicates that it says, nor does the city intend to acquire those lands. We're referring to the wetlands corridor that in previous discussions and built into the park phase two that they were going to take. And as a point of clarity, I'd like to ask who is speaking for the city when they say, nor does the city intend to acquire those lands? Is that city management? Is it the city council? Marla? The staff notes represent the position of city staff. So these notes are coordinated between the park. As they open. I would just like to point out that through the past, I've had different segments of the city. And I think what was documented at our last meeting was clear that it's the city council's intention through the resolution that they had passed that they do intend to acquire that land. Let's move on to the regulation. As staff notes point out that we should look solely at the regulation. So let's look at the regulation, which is 15.12D4. And I will read that. And of course, we're talking about where the park is and how we connect the two. And I'm gonna jump down to paragraph B and it says in determining whether a connection to an adjacent property may or could occur in the location and configuration of such connection, the DRB may consider point number one, the existence of planned roadways or recreation paths in the city's comprehensive plan, the official map or these regulations. Marla, is it possible to put up the some of the maps that I sent along to you? I sent along both the official map and the map within the comprehensive plan. Neither one of those show a connection in the location that the city is asking for a connection. So you can see where Dumont Park is, which is the green triangle. It does not show a connection to Garden Street or to the city's stormwater park, which we had given the city. If we could go to the comprehensive plan. Now in very faint yellow, you can see where I drew a circle to highlight that area. And the crisscross green dotted line shows where the recreation paths are planned for. And it comes down Hinesburg Road, turns onto Market Street and then connects to the cycle track that we're building on Garden Street. Again, there shows no connection to Dumont Park. The second part of the regulation states or I should say the item number four states, the DRB may consider the presence of physical obstacles to such connections, such as wetlands, water bodies or steep slopes. Again, I've asked Marla, I sent in to show you the wetlands corridor. The black dots that I have put on that map show the crossings of where the city would like to lay their phase two of their park, showing you the boardwalk and the bridges that connect to city center. Clearly, clearly there is a physical obstacle. The wetlands measure in the amount of 100s from 70 to 100 feet at those two locations. When you add in the 50 foot buffer on each side, we're talking about a crossing of 170 to 200 feet. There's clearly a significant physical obstacle. An element of the physical obstacle, an element of the physical obstacle exclusion must be the cost consideration. The bike bridges are estimated, at least according to an article in the other paper, to be in the amount of $700,000 to a million dollars. So moving on to the next point of the staff notes, regarding the design in the easement, the bridges in the past have already been designed for the preferred design alternative. I cannot commit to granting an easement without knowing specific terms of an easement agreement. I would also be reluctant to granting an easement because it has the potential to shift the bike bridge issue to site plan review where there is no DRB involvement and staff can set permit conditions independent of the DRB under the form-based code process. I think this issue should be resolved in the DRB in an open forum, especially since the city is the adjoining property owner. So I am asking the board to provide the guidance that because there is a substantial physical obstacle, which creates an enormous financial burden along with the landowners willingness to give the land to the city as originally contemplated that you find that we've satisfied this requirement. I'd ask my colleagues if they have anything to add to that. No, that was well thought out. Thank you, Tim. I understand this is sketch plan. You don't make a ruling, you just provide guidance, but I've made my request of what I think that guidance should be. Thank you, Tim. Marla, I need help with this. What are your thoughts about what Tim has said? Well, I would like to read what the staff comment says, because I think that Tim has said a lot of words that potentially lead to the same point that staff was making. And I feel like Tim provided his comments in a way that indicates he believes he's not saying what staff is saying. So staff recommends the board consider whether the actual construction is required that they will allow the applicant to provide a conceptual connection design sufficient to demonstrate feasibility in horizontal and vertical space. In other words, a conceptual layout and to provide a 30 foot wide easement centered on that design at the next stage of review. So we're not asking at this in these staff comments for anything more than a conceptual design to demonstrate that the provided easement is feasible. When it comes to Tim's comment about not wanting to provide, not being able to commit to an easement without the specific terms of the easement agreement, I would suggest that Tim has an opportunity here to provide the specific terms of an easement agreement to suggest what he would like them to be such that he can agree to them at the next stage of review. Thank you. I don't think we're very far apart. And I feel like that is not how the applicant's feeling. Thank you, Marlott. Tim, what are your thoughts about that? We would, our preference would be to stay with the agreement that we have with the city as articulated in the preferred alternative option. We may consider an option agreement as long as it can hammer out the terms that say that the project would not bear the cost of building the bike bridges. Our, I expressed our concern is that this shifts the, shifts the discussion of the bike bridge the site plan review of which the DRB is not involved. And we would prefer the DRB involvement as opposed to leaving the permit conditions up to stop alone. Okay. Board members, any board members have any input into this or thoughts? Just a question, just to clarify, Tim, the success is the, are you or the either the landowner or the applicant comfortable with covering the costs of that conceptual design? Not necessarily. I hearken back to the last meeting that we have where clearly laid out that the city, a lot of money on the land works. They designed a park with my approval. They asked that we would donate the wetlands corridor to them. We said that we would. They designed the park, phase two of their park on our land with the bridges and the boardwalks. As a courtesy to them, we went and got that permitted and paid for the permit and the mitigation of those wetland impacts. And it feels like the deal is being retreated right now. That we went through a number of years of understanding it. The city council took that those alternatives agreed upon one plan and passed a resolution accepting that plan. And so it feels like the deal is being changed. Okay, thanks. And then back to Marla, just again, again, I apologize because this is all somewhat new to me. I don't know the history of all of this. Is there anything in our bylaws or in any agreements between the city and the property owner or the developers from prior discussions that those parties, not the city be responsible for covering the cost of the conceptual connection design? The previous agreement. Your recommendation, the applicant to provide a conceptual connection design sufficient to demonstrate feasibility. Is there a requirement in the bylaws or in any prior agreements that the applicant be required to do that? Yes or no? There is no prior agreement. The requirement in the bylaw is that the is 15.12D4A, that the applicant construct to the adjoining property. And what we're suggesting here is that we actually dial that back from the minimum requirement to construct and allow them to simply provide a feasible design. Can I ask a question in, I guess Dan, I appreciate your question and Marla, your response. And I'm Chris Snyder from Snyder Braverman. And I guess, you know, listening to the discussion here tonight, you know, I don't quite understand why we, if we have connections to bike paths and we have connections to roadways which are being provided by the landowner through the development of the city center parcel, why would we be required to provide bridges to adjacent parcels over a body of water? And that seems like a stretch of the connection to adjacent parcels. And I guess I've never been involved in a neighborhood development process which bridges have been required as part of a bylaw language to go over a body of water. So I guess that's where we developers don't understand as well how that piece of this can be, you know, the responsibility of the developer to provide concept drawings for a bridge that isn't typical or in our mind, our responsibility. I wonder if there's a disconnect on the feasibility, the design to demonstrate feasibility and what you, the term you just used as a concept design. You know, staff's intention was trying to prove that it can be built where it's shown, you know, it's not in the deepest part of the wetland, you know, there be dragons, that sort of thing. Like is it, is the easement actually designed and construct this bridge? I don't think we're looking for, you know, 50% designs. We're asking for a feasibility, you know, is this a viable location? And when the viable location have been answered during the original permitting process of the property when the city participated in the wetland applications and provided, you know, feedback and information related to the location of the entrance and the landing on both sides of the tributary, wouldn't that really be the feasibility? It was, the feasibility has already been determined. It's been feasible that it can be done through the wetland permitting process, which was done several years ago. Don, can I ask the question or weigh in or? Please. Okay. So I'm trying to, obviously this is to say it's a more complex issue than we normally take on at the BRB is not correct. Cause I mean, we've had to explore every number of things where I've had to, we've had to discuss trip ends when we never thought we were gonna discuss trip ends. And now we're sort of, we're trying to figure out how to do that. And then we're trying to figure out how we're gonna discuss trip ends. And now we're sort of discussing the legality and, you know, applicability of something that's an agreement between sounds like city council and the developer and land development regulations, previous resolutions, preferred, you know, design work. So we're trying to get through this, you know, and I'm just trying to come up with an understanding of it. And it sounds like, you know, we're 48 to 52%. We're close and we're just trying to find nuance so that, you know, Tim McKenzie, Chris Niter and Ken Braverman are comfortable, staff is comfortable. But it, and it sounds like we're both saying the same thing and hitting a wall. So one question I have is, Tim, your reluctance is that you don't wanna grant an easement without some confidence that in granting that easement, you're not gonna get backed up into having to go through site plan review where the city staff has the ability to put conditions that we as the DRB might not have implemented through the public forum process. Is that correct? I just correct. Okay, because it seems to me, and this goes to Marla's point I'm asking, it seems to me that, you know, the maps that we have in our packet, the city center, Dumont Park conceptual site plan preferred option dated March 18th, 2015. It's draft for review. I get it's not final, but it's outlining the connections and the crossings across these two water bodies that we, the DRB may consider for connections to adjacent parcels. And no, it's not a full conceptual, it's not a full design, you know, from a schematic design standpoint, but I would argue it's almost as a conceptual design. You know, it says multi-use boardwalk bridge, 10 feet wide railings approximately five feet above wetland and water level. You know, as an architect who has to put these things together, sometimes I would argue that that kind of is the conceptual design for what they're proposing. You know, you can envision it conceptually for what you've seen in other parts. No, it's not been explored from a viability of how deep the piers need to be at the spacings are, how you're going to design the crossing across a certain span. But conceptually, that's what the plan is. So Marla is what you're asking, is it to take it to the next level to say, okay, but that's the concept, how are we actually going to span those spans across the water? Or is that sufficient to say a conceptual design for these connections to the city lands? I would say that my vision is somewhere in between those two. So it's more like the Land Works did this study and it's unclear to me whether there was any viability checking of those dimensions. It looks like a pretty picture. And then once you draw more than two lines, it goes from a $50,000 pedestrian bridge to a $500,000 engineered suspension bridge. Exactly. And we're trying to figure out what level of conceptual design and understanding we need to get to. And I see where the impasse is occurring. Land Works clearly was engaged by the city to come up with these designs for these connections. And they're pretty pictures and if they can be implemented, that's great. But I think what I'm hearing is Marla is saying that she's looking for the developer landowner to take it to the next level. And the landowners pushing back saying, they're just providing an easement to provide the connection and the conceptual design has been done by Land Works, which was retained by the city. Have I sort of summarized where we're at right now without coming up with an actual solution? Yeah, I find that helpful, very helpful. Yeah, I find that very helpful too, Mark. And I guess my question is, in the bylaw, is it required under the 15 point, whatever Marla, you quoted, I don't have that in front of me, but is that, does it say that we have to provide? It will send comments for this packet. I think, you know, if I can weigh in on that because just from reading the comment, I can, and having gone through enough application hearings where we've discussed the may, should, could and shall in how we review the regulations, you know, it does say the DRB may consider, which doesn't say we have to consider, we may consider. And I think what Marla's getting at is that, you know, if we're going to consider it, we need a little more information and we're asking the applicant to provide it so that we can consider whether or not a connection, you know, may occur, you know. So if you guys do do the conceptual design, you come back and say, look, we've done the, you know, the current plan for the, that was done by Land Works is what we refer to as, you know, people are probably familiar with the 30,000 foot, you know, looksie. And the city's asking for the developer to do like a 10,000 foot looksie, which might be a little more conceptual, a little more schematic with some rough cost estimating, you know, but still of a schematic nature and say, yeah, this is what it's going to take, you know, because we did a quick study and here's the conceptual design rather than just two lines that says 10 feet wide, five feet above the water surface. And then the DRB can say, okay, you know, we now have more information to be able to consider that, you know, connection. I think that's the disconnect that we're getting where Marla's coming from is that for the DRB to consider it, we need some more information and the applicant's saying, well, you already have it, it's conceptually been done and shown. Marla, can I add one item? Yeah, which is last meeting we made the argument that the connection that the schematic design that you saw was the park and that our obligation to connect was from after the bridge crossed the wetlands, that our connection point should be from there to the cycle track on Garden Street and not all the way to the other, not to all the way to the Dumont Park. And the staff notes were basically say, don't look at the resolution that was provided, just look at the regulations and so now we're bringing the resolution back into it. Yeah. Would it be possible to pull up exhibit B of the resolution? Because I think the graphically shows a lot. I'm getting, this is Dawn, I'm getting a little concerned about the amount of time and I'm wondering Marla, is this something that we can resolve tonight or is there an offline step or process to get us to a point where there's some agreement? Let me phrase what I believe is to the question. You'll have to be patient with me because I may be, I may get there using a couple of different approaches. 15.12 D4 says, if the DRB finds that a roadway or recreation path extension or connection to an adjacent property may or could occur in the future, whether through city action or development of an adjacent parcel, the DRB shall require the applicant to construct to the property line or contribute the cost to completing a roadway connection. In determining whether such a connection may or could occur and the location and configuration of such connections, the DRB may consider and then that's those things that Tim mentioned earlier in the complaint and the zoning district and the wetlands and that sort of thing. So the question here is, does the board believe that a roadway or recreation path extension or connection to an adjacent property may or could occur in the future? And I think even the applicant is saying, well, yes, the Land Work Study says that the door should occur. And then the second part is okay, if since we all have a case, what is the applicant's responsibility? And I think the question is, is the applicant responsible for doing nothing, providing an easement, providing proof that their easement is actually a useful easement or actually constructing it. I think that's sort of like the tiers here. And I think if, you know, tier A doing nothing and tier D is building the thing, I think staff is asking for tier C, which is provide a demonstrably useful easement. Madam Chair. Yes. I guess one of the key things and somewhat analogous to the discussion and I'm not trying to put thoughts in Tim's head, but to me it's a matter of when does that design process and or will it go back and forth and back and forth with the meter running on whichever landscape architecture or our engineering firm is used? And so I don't know if there's some way to come up with, to me the question is not so much a design question, to me it's the engineering feasibility analysis to find out if is it even feasible to put something across here for a reasonable cost. So perhaps if there's a way, again, this is just sketch. So I think the guidance here is that, is that at the next level of application, that the applicant and city staff work to refine that scope of work, and then there would be a known cost and then the applicant could say, well we'd be willing to contribute X towards that cost. But I think an open-ended thing, just guessing, no applicant likes an open-ended meter running and a back and forth with three or four more meetings arguing over Zoom or even in person over whether there's been enough engineering conducted on it. That's my guess, but that's my potential solutions. So can the board provide direction on what level of detail they think is appropriate? Because as everybody keeps saying, this is sketch, you can only provide guidance. What is your guidance? And we can go individual by individual if we want. On what is the appropriate level, the appropriate standard for the applicant to provide here. Okay, I'm gonna say, I don't feel like I have a good enough grasp of this issue to state that. And I think there are people on the board who understand this better than I. So Mark, Dan, you've spoken about this, so what are your thoughts? Can I ask a quick question here? Sure, in our packet we have the document exhibit B, which the next thing on the park, and it depicts the wetland corridor adjacent to the Garden Street right of way and the new development that we're, maybe at some point we'll talk about tonight, with that arched boardwalk that we talked about as a conceptual design. Who currently owns the land with wetland? Is that the applicant or is that the city's land right now? It's South Burlington Realty Land. So okay, so okay, so you own the land and are you deeding it over to the city or is it gonna remain your land in perpetuity? The plan was when the project started in 2015, a request was made if we would do a boundary line adjustment to the city. We agreed we would and the city went and spent significant amount of money with Land Works to design what would be phase two, which would be on land that would be granted to the city. Okay, and part of phase two was built in that little pocket park off of Market Street, correct? Say that again, Mark. Part of phase two has already been built in that little pocket park right off Market Street. That is correct, we've already granted the city an easement on that one. Okay, and who paid for the design work for the pocket park? The city, that's a stormwater. Got it, okay, but I call it a pocket park because it's clearly laid out as a park with the function of being a stormwater retention base. So I'm hesitant to say I think the applicant should pay for the design work, but I'm hesitant to say the city should because I think the applicant has satisfied what they're looking, what their obligations are. And if the land is ultimately going to be deeded over to the city when this project is all said and done and Land Works went through the concept and we don't know exactly what the final design is going to be, but if the city is going to be paying for the connections ultimately and the applicant's only providing an easement on a semi-temporary basis until this, no? That's not quite accurate. So what I understand, and again, this goes back to Tim's question about who is staff in these staff. What I understand from talking to other people in the city, other departments, including the city manager's office and department of public works is that the city does not have any intention of taking over the land that contains the wetlands. As I pointed out earlier, as I pointed out earlier that the city had passed the resolution accepting the city council passed the resolution accepting that design based upon the recommendation of the definition of project which included a boundary line adjustment. So we're hearing different things from different segments of the city. I don't agree with the resolution the same way you do, Tim, but okay. I'm gonna break in here. We have a very packed agenda and I feel like we're chasing our tail a little bit and I'm wondering if there's an efficient way to take care of this offline so that the applicant is in a better position to come back for the next stage of review. I guess I still feel like I wanna hear from the board. Of the four things that the applicant can do here, nothing, provide an easement, provide a demonstrated feasible easement or provide a constructed connection. What is the board is leaning towards? I'm leaning towards saying they provide an easement and that's it. I think that the city, again, you're asking for us to make a decision and asking for our opinion, we've gone through an exercise and it's preliminary but showing where the connection should happen. The park's been designed with a concept for a connection. Clearly there's a connection to DuPont park roughly planned and I think the applicant should provide an easement in that general location and is there any way the easement can have language that allows it to be a floating easement for when the city actually does the design and final construction of this connection walkway if it needs to adjust, can we put some language in it for that? It probably could Mark, but the boardwalk is, we mitigated the wetlands impact so it can't vary much from where it's currently showed on that design. Okay, then it doesn't sound like we, then it sounds like we can just have them provide an easement and then we have to make it work or not work. If we can't make it work, then the adjacent water, bodies of water, we're gonna be an impediment to providing connections under, great, under section 1512D4B4, presence of physical obstacles to such a connection, such as wetlands, water bodies or steep slopes. Yeah, Madam Chair, just to follow up. Yeah, I would, I would say the easement, granting the easement makes the most sense and will allow city processes to perhaps move along concurrently with some initial design or looking to hire a consultant or access grant money for design or convene some sort of working group committee of engineers and city staff who can gather together soon, well, not over zoom and talk about some ideas for what my work can get a bridge to cross the wetland. Because I think if we've, if we'd conceptually come up with the design and the applicant isn't gonna be the one who's gonna be building it, having them do a further design is kind of a move point because the city may ultimately in the future say, we don't want that, we want this. And it was just sort of a waste of time and resources. It either it can happen or it can happen when we have the applicant provide an easement and then we figure it out in the future. Thank you. Alyssa and Jim, do you have any thoughts to add to this? I think what's been said, I'm in agreement with. I don't really have anything else to add. Okay, Jim, anything to add? Yeah, I was leaning toward easement as well. Okay. All right. Does that give everybody enough so that we can move on and conclude the sketch? Rachel? Yes. Marla? Yes. Do we have to vote on concluding sketch? No. Okay. Then I'm going to thank the applicants for their patience and input. And I will conclude the sketch and we'll see you again back here at some point in the future. Thank you. I appreciate it, Tanner. I'll see you at your time. Thank you. Thank you. And thanks, Dan and Mark especially for your help with this. So just to remind members of the public, we are trying what the city council does, which is leave your cameras off if you are not participating. That helps us notice you when you do wish to participate during the public comment period. Also leave yourself muted. I think everything's pretty good about the muting part at this point. But please turn your cameras off if you are not participating. At the moment. So, for members or applicants. Okay. Thank you, Marla. Okay. Moving on to the next item on the agenda. This is a continued sketch plan, another high level review, plan application SD 2110 of Allen Long for a planned unit development on two existing 39.2 acre lots each developed with a single family home. The plan unit development consists of 49 homes, including five perpetually affordable units and 9.3 acres of open space proposed to be dedicated to the city of South Burlington at 1420 and 1430 Spear Street. Who is here for the applicant? I'm Allen Long and joined by my brother Dan, his wife Denise, my wife Carol and my sister Eleanor. The whole crew. Brian Currier is here from O'Leary Burke, our civil engineers. Thank you. And no need to swear anyone in because it's still sketch. So, let us move right to the remaining staff comments. And then we're going to- Don, this is Jim, I just, I need to recuse my, I need to recuse myself from, that's why I'll be, I'll be signing off until the next item on the agenda. Okay, Jim, thanks. Now, are we calling Staffordy back for this one? Yes, I'm back. Okay, thank you. All right. So, I think that unless you have something new to add Mr. Long, I think that we'll go on with the staff comments. There aren't a lot of them. And then we would like to leave a significant amount of time for public comment. So Delilah, if you could please call up the staff comments because I don't have them in front of me. Thank you. Okay, let's, could you scroll down to the first one, please? Actually, Don, if you could let me just say a couple of things quickly. Sure, go ahead, Mr.- About introduction to this hearing. We don't have two 39 acre parcels. It's two parcels totaling 39 acres. The 9.3 acres, I'm sorry, the 9.3 acres being conveyed in some fashion to the city. I'm not quite sure where that number came from. We have 22 of those 39 acres are already conserved under the NRP statute. And so, yeah, I just thought I would mention that. Thank you. So let the record show that you have one existing 39.2 acre lot, correct? Yeah, we're combining two parcels into one for the purposes. All right. Thank you for clarifying that. Is there anything else you'd like to add before we move on to staff comments? No, I think we should go ahead. Okay, thank you. Okay, the first where we left off last time is number seven and the comment is staff recommends the board ask the applicant to describe how the homes will be either screened or made visibly compatible with adjacent development and provide feedback as necessary. So, Mr. Long, go ahead. Well, so we're very cognizant of the fact that this proposed development that's in between two previously constructed developments, South Point to the North and South Village to the South. We would like to make our design as compatible with those as possible. On the other hand, I think that several of us have expressed the opinion that we don't like the idea of just a line of houses or carriage homes that look very much identical. There are examples of that in other developments in the city that don't seem attractive to us at all. So, at the suggestion of staff several months ago before our sketch plan was submitted, we tried to break up a couple of those sequences of carriage houses or two families. And I think that's gonna add some interest and break up the monotony. You might wanna just go to the next age of the Marla, if you're controlling this. Yeah, so you can see how, especially on the left-hand side of this design, we've got a mixture of different building types, and we've tried not to put them all in a row. One example that may not look like that is on the eastern edge of the development there. At the top, there are six carriage houses there in a row. And if we do end up building all of the buildings and end up building all of those there, we're going to make a determined effort to landscape them differently and design them with some variety to them so that they don't all look the same. Does that answer the staff question? Thank you, Mr. Locke. That was about landscaping. We certainly don't want all of these structures and their front yards to look identical. So we're hoping to do some creative landscaping and make the development look as congenial as possible. Thank you. Thoughts and comments from the board? Ellen, I would just note that this, I haven't seen anything that's of concern at this stage or review. This is the criteria that smaller projects tend to get stuck on. No, it's difficult to sort of, and maybe I guess even some medium-sized projects where compatibility is definitely a subjective criteria. So having the homes be varied from one another and intermingled definitely seems like it's on the right track but there has been a lot of precedent where a lot of applications struggle with these criteria. So any sort of lessons that the board wishes to impart, I'm sure would be well appreciated. Did we talk at the last time we met with the applicant, did we talk about the design guidance that some developments have? I don't recall. Some, because Mr. Long, there are some developments that have design guidance that identify different criteria and different design elements to try to achieve some variability but yet maintain some unanimity. So things, there's a common theme but there's some variations. So you might wanna think about that and talk to some other developments about that but it sounds like to me like the applicant is well aware of this concern has given it some thought and we'll take that staff comment into consideration when moving to the next phase. Any other board members have some thoughts about that that they wanna share before we move on? Madam Chair. Yes, Dan. Madam Chair, it's Dan Albrecht and maybe this is a question for Brian Curry or two as well as the applicant. I'm curious about the, I get the idea that there's already sort of been an informal path that bisects the development. I'm a little concerned, well, a couple of things. The Underwood property has been in the city's hands for several years now. Got some in, root of entry paths, a brush-hog area, but we don't really have any gravel down or bark or it's still, we're still a ways from that, disappointingly so on a personal note. And I'm unsure of the legal status only because I'm reading some of the comments about private paths on South Village. So I'm unclear if there is a right of access of the public onto South Village land, yes or no. There is. I did do some research and there is a recorded document of those paths being opened to the public. Okay. Okay. That's good to know. Thank you for that, Mara. And so to me there's this whole vision of North-South connectivity makes a lot of sense. I guess I have a concern about layout only because with no, and this is out along Spear Street, no formal bike paths, no sidewalks. And then I'm also concerned about having a path that's essentially running through people's backyards. And so while people who have lived there may feel in that neighborhood, may feel comfortable walking there now as they have been across your property. I'm thinking 10, 20, 30, 40 years down the line, new members of the public, including some that haven't been born yet, are not gonna feel comfortable doing that. Whereas, oh, walking down a public road to access a known trailhead through here, or walking down a public road in South Village to access a known trailhead makes more sense to me. So I understand that maybe the location and the informal path that exists along the northern perimeter of the property, but I just, again, this is fatter down the line, but to think of maybe ways is, I know a lot of members of the public would be like, I'm walking in somebody's backyard. I don't know if I should do this. So can I just say a couple of words about that? We provided this path because it's a nice thing to have in a neighborhood. We do intend to maintain a nice strip of greenery along the northern border of the development there, partly respecting, partly for our own occupants of this neighborhood, and partly to respect the backyard views, if you will, of the folks in South Point there, adjacent to the property line. It was not our intention to provide public access to everybody in Chittenden County to walk through this property to get to the Great Swamp. There's no place to park. So we hadn't really envisioned that particular recreation path to serve that purpose. You mentioned the Underwood property, and I think it's fantastic that access to the area to the east that we all value so highly for conservation purposes can be had through the Underwood property, and it is adjacent to the north there beyond South Point. So the easement that we mentioned in our cover letter for the public, we may want to rethink that a little bit, given that the access from the Underwood property to that eastern portion is already essentially available to members of the public. As far as connections to South Village are concerned, my understanding is there's a road connection proposed here between South Point and South Village that the city has, if not mandated, has certainly anticipated for many years because it asked those two developments to provide stub roads right to the border of our property. My understanding is that there's an intention for a recreational path parallel to that connection. A bicycle path would be great. We would love to connect to the adjacent developments for recreational purposes there. We've gotten a little feedback from South Village that the connection that we've sketched in here kind of halfway along the southern border of our property, that connection to their trail system might not work out so well, that's perfectly fine. We just put one in there because Paul Conner thought we ought to have a connection. We can put it anywhere that feels best to people. In fact, there was a comment that we need to figure out where we're going to put our dumpsters and recycling bins for the multifamily units there, there are those four that are lined up. That would be a good spot to do that. So none of these paths are cast in stone, but we do like the idea of a path and in that wooded area that we want to preserve on the north side of the property there. Thank you. So, board and Marla, are you feeling like we can move on that we've covered the comment that this just come? Just remind the board that the paths and things were discussed at a previous meeting. And so there was the marching order for the applicant to coordinate with the by the head and Recreation and Parks Committee, the Recreation and Parks Committee and I had a great meeting to sort of frame out the questions that the board had asked, namely, look at this project from a higher level and connections to underwood, even though it's not the adjoining parcel and connections to the Scott property and down as far as it goes. So they are all teed up to work on those questions with the applicant. Don, there's one other point actually on the staff comments, number eight. If you want to talk about that one too, we'd be happy to say if you were. I just want to make sure to follow up on Marla's comment. Will you be in contact with the bike and pet committee, Mr. Long? Absolutely. Okay, great, thank you. All right, number eight. There is a minimum required landscaping required for all new buildings except single family homes on their own lots. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to describe how they propose to spend the minimum required landscaping budget, which will be substantial given that the open space areas are already relatively well landscaped. So what do you have to tell us about that, please? Well, so we have yet to consult with a landscape architect on this. So anything that I say will be kind of vague in general, but on the four perimeters, around the perimeter of the property, you just saw that nice green area on the northern edge between our development and south point. On the southern edge, there is already a stone wall and a lot of trees there. We're going to try to preserve as many of those as we can. Certainly want to preserve as much natural vegetation, not invasive species, of course, but as much natural vegetation as we can. The eastern side of the property is an old meadow and goes over towards the Great Swamp. We don't really feel as if we need to provide a barrier visually there of any sort. But one thing I may not have mentioned in the previous meeting is that along Spear Street there, where there was some concern expressed in one of those letters that people across Spear Street and people driving on Spear Street would be looking into the backyards of the dwellings that we've proposed closest to Spear Street. We'd like to build a berm along there with some plantings on top of it, some news or Arborvites, so that people aren't looking into those backyards and conversely, people in those houses aren't looking at traffic on Spear Street all the time. So, you know, in the development itself, we'll try to preserve as much natural vegetation as we can. A lot of those, the places where we're proposing to build are not forest areas. Those are, they used to be meadows and hay fields. So any trees there are new growth and we'll preserve them as street trees, if appropriate. Obviously, landscape in front of each dwelling, as I mentioned in my answer to the previous staff comment and we're just hoping that it'll be a nice looking development from all angles. Great, that's certainly a great sentiment and we will look forward to seeing more detail at the next stage of review. So thank you for that. So I, given that we've gone through all the staff comments unless Marla, you have anything else to add or anybody on the board has anything. I think, go ahead, Mark. Yeah, I just, can we bring the site plan up again real quick? I just wanna add one comment or point and it's sort of to Dan's point, which is something I've always been trying, I've been sensitive to on projects we've looked at. I know we're gonna hear neighbor comments and stuff like that, but I think it's a great little infill project. But one thing I would love to see if possible is connecting the open space area B and open space area C, which might mean losing, I think unit 39, which is directly across the street from the little pocket park C and so that you can connect the two spaces so that people feel as though they're not gonna be walking behind people's backyards. And it makes that sort of connection and makes the whole development feel like it has a little more connectivity to the green space spaces in there. And that's one comment. And then the little, the single family that's at the end far to the east, just below the six carriage homes, which is right next to the stormwater treatment area, if there's any way to separate the single family from the other carriage homes a little more or lose it all together. I mean, I know every time you lose a unit it's development, it's density, but I think that that would connect that you'd create like a little green band that sort of meanders through the whole site rather than being disconnected areas. And right now it feels like you have three distinct disconnected areas with minute little connections. I think if you were to somehow, I know they're gonna be disconnected by road and asphalt, but without houses there, it creates more of a visual connection and you would lose two units of density, but I think you would really create a lot more of green space connection. So either spreading it out, but again, it feels like it's sort of a standalone by itself that wanted below the six carriage homes, but if you could even just widen it open so that the connection between A and B has a little more width to it. Those are my two comments. Other than that, given the South Point and South Village, this connects perfectly in between it with the streets and the infill and I'd like it, I think, but with a little work you can improve upon the connectivity and the people's use of those spaces. So Dan said, you don't wanna feel like you're walking in someone's backyard. Those are my two comments. Thanks, Mark. Any other comments from the board before we turn to public comment? Okay, hearing none. Let's do a time check. It's 8.12. Alyssa, how many people have indicated an interest in providing testimony? There are eight to 10 people, two people, two different groups of people signed on together. I'm not sure if they each wanted to individually comment or comment together. So given the time, I think that we will go to our typical limit. People can always submit comments and writing or email them to Marla, but I think what we'll do is limit each testimony to three minutes. And if somebody has already said something that you'd like to say public rather than going into great detail, it's always helpful if you just say, I agree with Ralph that this is a concern or whatever. So let me set the timer and I will see who's in the chat box first. Ooh, how do I tell who the folks are that have expressed interest? Do you want Alyssa to start calling people? Pardon me? I have gone into the chat box first, John Deebak. Go ahead, Alyssa, what were you going to say? So I believe that everyone in the chat box right now was interested in commenting on this project and two other people just checked in. I have Dottie as the first person who signed in. I see in the chat box, probably about 40 names. I think you're looking at the, I think you're looking at the participation. So, John, if you want Alyssa to sort of run, be the organizer for the public comment and just sort of call people in the order. That would be really helpful, because I see 100, let me see, put my glasses, reading glasses on. Oh, 14. I think that would be possible in the chat. Pardon me? The thought bubble, the chat, and then you'll see it starts off with Dottie, Rosenway, John Deebak. It's funny, I don't see that. I have a very different view. I have a long list of names. But anyways, Alyssa, that would be wonderful. Take it away. Hello, can anybody hear? Pardon me? Oh, hi, this is Karen LaFever. I'm not doing this right. I've been on in the background, but I have meant to sign on to speak. Could I be added? Can I use the chat box? I don't, I don't know. I came on a long time ago and I don't know if I put anything in there or not. So we're gonna call on people that are signing on the chat box. We will allow time for other people who are interested in speaking on this project at 1720 and 1730 Spear Street. I have not signed on the chat box after, but let's proceed. Where is the chat box, please? I don't know. At the top of your screen, there's a little thought bubble. Yes? Yeah. And that's where you can sign in. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, Alyssa, who is first, please? So, Dottie, if you wanted to comment, looks like you're up first. Thank you. Please state your name. Sure, my name is Dorothy Rosenzweig. I go by Dottie and I am a resident of the South Point Development. And I have several concerns about the proposed planned development. One is the, is a great increase in traffic that will happen in our neighborhood because the projected plan has the exit to Spear Street going from our development as opposed to somewhere else. And we're a development of 35 houses and this is gonna be 49 houses. So it's gonna multiply the number of cars on a daily basis immensely. And my preference would be to use one of the two existing long driveways and exit it that way as opposed to dumping all this additional traffic into our development. Then, I am very concerned about the row of seven houses that are proposed for Parkside Drive. And a very large amount of film would be required to build those houses because right now there's a steep drop off from the road. That's a very sensitive wildlife area. The Great Swamp is there. There are all kinds of animals there because we see them on our wildlife camera photos. And those houses will interfere with that. Those houses also will look like they're part of our development, but they're not. And they don't have to follow the rules that our development has to follow. So I'm concerned about that. And lastly, it's my understanding from reviewing various documents that were submitted was that when the recent study was done about undeveloped parcels, this one was number one in terms of conservation importance. And I don't think this plan properly conserves something that apparently we were the number one parcel in terms of ecological value. So those are my concerns. I don't wanna go over my time, so I'll stop. John, I think you're muted. Thank you. I have a question for you and thank you for your testimony. When you say the rules that your community, your neighborhood has to abide by, what do you mean by that? We have a whole set of bylaws and special rules. There are rules about how many animals can be had. There are rules about landscaping. There are rules about lawns, those kinds of things. Okay, so these are agreements in your HOA. Correct. Okay, good. Thank you for that clarification. And thank you for your testimony. You're welcome. Okay, who would like to speak next? Alyssa. So sorry if I get this last name wrong, John Dieben. Yep, you have it right. Okay, go ahead, tell us your thoughts. So I'm a John Dieben, I'm in a butter on the south village side, but I also like to say that I've been housing development and construction for 40 years. I own some of properties, Green Mountain Development, Pinnacle Builders all located in South Burlington. My local project is the Pines Senior Living Community plus lots of other projects around Chittenden County and all of Northern New England. I bring this up as I presented in permitted projects like this to boards. And one of my basic planning premises is to develop housing, which respects the land and the surrounding neighborhoods. With difficult sites, I would adjust locations of housing, streets and parking and more importantly, reduce the potential density of housing. And looking at the current long plans, none of these tenants of good respectable development occur. The current layout purports to be a traditional neighborhood. This characterization is completely wrong. A traditional neighborhood does not include a surface parking lot for 37 cars, which is a continuous paid area of 22,000 square feet, which is about a half an acre of asphalt parking in one location. More importantly, when you compare this current layout with both South Point and South Village, it does not continue the neighborhood elements of those projects. South Point is all single family homes with traditional streets and front garages and no large parking lots. Guest parking is on the street. South Village is predominantly single family homes with some duplexes thrown in, but most importantly, traditional streets with garages for cars and no large parking areas. Yes, South Village has a couple larger buildings, but parking is underneath these buildings and there are no large parking lots. The current long layout also does not respect the existing elements of the land or a wildlife habitat. This is shown on the pages. I did put these in email today, so it's pretty hard to see them on this, but the Western view shows an existing significant forest area along the entire Southern boundary, which will be completely eliminated with the multifamily buildings and the half acre parking lot. This area currently has some wet pockets, but more importantly is an existing wildlife habitat. Deer uses area for wintering and protection. In addition, South Village residents along that boundary, those two buildings in South Village will be looking right down on a very large parking lot with car headlights and the noise of cars. The plan for this area should be reversed so that housing and backyards are backed up to neighboring properties and garages put in the front so that cars in this project are not backed up to an existing neighborhood. Additional parking can be along the streets, just as occurs now in South Village and South Point. In addition, the housing on the east side of Parkside Drive is completely inappropriate. This fact is showing in the photographs which I have sent in. The area is adjacent to a class two wet land, it should be completely protected. Any building here will completely disrupt and endanger the wet land. I'm gonna ask you to bring your comments to a close in the interest of allowing everyone to comment, please. Okay, there needs to be a balance between housing density and natural elements. Density needs to be reduced. The developer, the owner needs to supply a new design that would eliminate housing on the east side of Parkside, eliminate the parking lot on the south's boundary, have that be backyards, have it be part of the overall community, not as an infill that's basically looking on its own south for its betterment and not for the neighbors on each side. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Alyssa, who's next? Next we have Robin Jeffers. Robin, we've talked to you before. Go ahead. You have. Thanks for a couple of minutes here. I would echo both of what Mark said. It's a good infill project and also part of what John said. We're finding the parking lot pretty challenging. So we're hoping that there can be a rework there all along our south boundary is a quiet path. It is a wildlife corridor. Deer go back and forth through there as well as people on occasion. So we are seeking to preserve that. Yes, our paths are open to other people and we certainly would recognize that people from the new neighborhood would be on them. There is, we believe a natural connection, right where our north Jefferson would intersect with, I believe the new name is Parkside Drive. So there's a preexisting connection right onto a public street to get onto our path system. And we've also written to the longs and they've been very receptive asking them to consider adopting something similar to our land management plan for our conservation land, our 130 acres, which is a large part of the Great Swamp. We do have very specific rules which are in large part governed by Act 250 as well as our own HOA bylaws. And we would like congruence with them so that the land can continue to be preserved and conserved for the value that it has for not only our community, but the greater community. And in light of that, we do object to the 20-foot easement crossing the Great Swamp. There's already a preexisting crossing from South Point neighborhood up to Underwood and there is another crossing in South Village at the south end at Midland Avenue. I think those are two already existing crossings that give anybody in South Burlington access to that area in a very peaceful and peaceful way as opposed to putting a lot of traffic in there that would really disturb the natural environment that we have worked so hard to conserve. Like John, we would like to see some modification of that parking lot area and believe that there could be better ways to handle it. One idea that I came up with was to, that they may wanna consider is some of the setbacks that are allowed in South Village or 10-foot front yard setbacks. That alone, if it were adopted, could allow that entire road, the east-west road to be moved 20 or 30 feet to the north without having to interrupt a lot of the planning that's already been done, but it would create another 30 to 40 feet adjacent to our quiet and nature path that would help to preserve its integrity. That's it. Madam Chair, could I ask a follow-up question to Robin? Just past history, the two of, I can't quite see any of my magnifying glass, but the multifamily units there, is that what's on your property there, above the northern boundary? Yes. Why was that location chosen? That location was chosen, boy. We inherited this project back in 2008 and I have to say it was pre-designed, so it was before my time, but part of the reason that it is at the outside edge of the property, but also because there is so much woods behind it and there is a natural boundary there. There's six units in each, those buildings are double faced, so there's six units in each building facing south and six facing north. They have underground parking, so the parking is managed underground, and then each person has a small little backyard area, and then there is a treed area, and then past the treed area is the nature path that you see running right along the boundary, and Mr. Long is right, there is a stone wall there and additionally quite a bit of woods, and then all that big area to the left in between are lots and lots to the south is all a wooded area. Okay, I'm just not in the location of a multi-family development on a property boundary, that's all, so thanks. Thank you, Robin. You're welcome. Okay, who's next? Next we have Barry Cousins. Barry, tell us your thoughts, hopefully in three minutes or less. Thank you, Alyssa. I am participating only, and I would like to defer my comments to Frances McDonald for the south point location. Okay, let me ask this, does anyone else want to defer, see their time to Mrs. Frances McDonald? Is that the name? Hello? Yeah, Mike, I have three extra minutes to Frances McDonald. And what is your name? Michael McInerney will give three extra minutes to Frances McDonald, he's up to nine. Okay. Does anyone else want to see their time to Frances McDonald? Yes, this is Chris Carpenter, and I would like to do the same. Okay, thanks, Chris. Yes, Holly and Herman Wiegman, the same. Okay, anyone else? Okay, Frances McDonald, you have 15 minutes if you need them, we would be thrilled if it's less, but fair is fair, so please tell us your thoughts. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to summarize our concerns and to introduce myself, Frances McDonald, resident of South Point neighborhood, and I'm the chairperson of the board of directors for the South Point Homeowners Association. And we would like to summarize some of our objections to the proposed development as shown. We understand that the current regulations, the current land development regulations will govern this at the present time, and that those regulations state that existing natural resources on the site will be protected through the development plan, including the natural communities, the wetlands, and the conservation areas as shown on the comprehensive plan. We don't see that the current plan protects the wetlands, the forested area, and the wildlife habitat. A number of our neighbors have observed and documented bobcat in that area, gray fox, red fox, white-tailed deer, and coyote. On regarding the seven houses that are east of Parkside Drive, the wetland in that area currently has a lot of standing water from the rains in April. There will be significant fill, as Dottie mentioned, that will be required to keep the foundations and the foundation drains above that current level of standing water. When the South Point neighborhood was approved in 2004, there were no homes facing Parkside Drive. All of the homes in South Point were designed to face either up-sweat lane or South Point Drive, and Parkside Drive was designed as a buffer between the developed areas and the wetland and met the required wetland restrictions at that time. And the development as proposed pushes that boundary much further east, and those seven homes are currently in the buffer area that was set aside by South Point and the South Point proposals are good. And those seven homes because they are facing inward and face our development that really are not compatible with the layout of the South Point neighborhood. The forested areas continue to the west of the proposed roadway, which is Parkside Drive. They contain mature trees, dense understory that's preferred by wildlife, and there's very limited human encroachment there right now. Several species have been observed, as I mentioned. They hunt in those areas. And after a recent snow on April 22nd, two of the board members from South Point were alerted that a neighbor had seen a bobcat. We went over there and looked and there were bobcat tracks throughout that whole area. We did see the bobcat, but it took off when it saw us. So we don't see that the proposed design protects that wildlife habitat. The South Point Homeowners Association is also concerned with the left turns in and out of South Point Drive. There'll be quite a bit of increased traffic resulting from the new development and some which will come from South Village. And we feel that when South Point was developed, the streets did not incorporate any measures for speed control. And we feel that we will see quite an increase in traffic. So kind of in summary, the South Point Homeowners Association is concerned that the wetlands and the conservation areas and that the forest areas really are not protected by this development plan. So thank you for hearing our concerns and hopefully I'm less than my allotted time. Thank you very much. You are in fact less than your allotted time. Thank you for that efficiency and for your comments. Who is next to comment? Don, can I just ask a quick question? Sure, Mark, go ahead. There's two, one comment Mr. McDonald said that I just was one to get clarification to maybe the applicant can submit it or respond or staff. The Mr. McDonald talked about the six homes on, I forgot the name of the road, upswept or better on the east side of the road and saying that part of the South Point development incorporated that area as part of the wetland buffer. Is that what I heard? No, not exactly, but when South Point was designed the development review board asked Snyder to keep all of the homes on the western most part of the land area. Okay. And when they did their wetland what do they do? The wetland designation or when they delineated the wetland with the 50 foot buffer at the time came up into the Parkside Drive. And so they use Parkside Drive to collect the storm water and divert it to a storm water collection base. Okay, all right, thank you for clarifying that. I appreciate that. Any other questions from the board for Mr. McDonald? Okay, thank you again, Mr. McDonald. Alyssa, who's next? Next up, we have Jennifer Rand. Jennifer Rand. Good evening, everybody. Norm Stanton speaking on behalf of Jen Rand who's right next to me. We are the homeowners and residents across the street across Spear Street from the two parcels that the Longs own and are asking to develop. As many of you know, we submitted fairly extensive comments to you all and I don't want to reiterate those. I want to make a couple of new points that have come up through this sort of deliberative process that both you all and the city council interim zoning board are a part of. The first thing I just want to point out to everybody and we agree with many of the comments of concern and opposition to the project that have been raised already, most of those comments come from folks who already live in planned unit developments. And I wanted to speak on behalf of myself and to the extent that we can to the other private homeowners who also apply that the development who have some additional concerns about the density and the land use and the impact on our home values and our lives. One of the biggest is the fact that concurrent to this deliberative process, there is a process under which the Longs have applied for a waiver under interim zoning for what is essentially a prohibited project through city council. And at the same time, this board has approved final plat and there is now a project under review from South Village to do further development and changes to their projects or to their development. And we wanted to just acknowledge the fact that you're talking about an exceptionally large amount of very dense development happening simultaneously against the backdrop of neighborhoods of homeowners that live here and are developing their own properties and are trying to maintain their values and their lifestyle and their quality of life. We understand that each one of these happens in a bit of a vacuum, but the board also I think has a need to take a look at the broader impact on the community of multiple simultaneous consecutive projects happening. I also just wanted to point out, in with respect to the to the berm and some of the distancing along Spear Street that we appreciate Mr. Long's offer to put in a berm to try and do some shielding for the sake of sort of context, a burn to block those properties from Spear Street and from the abutting homes would need to be 20 to 30 feet tall because of the slope of land. It's not a terribly effective land use or buffer zone. You've got 49 homes going in where there are currently two. You'll notice even on the plot that's up on your screen right now that the buffer from South Point against Spear is almost twice the size of the one that is proposed at the long property. And then finally, again, to echo some of the comments that have already been heard and to point out one other, we do respect to the board member that spoke on it and to Robin who is speaking on behalf of South Village. There is a group of folks that don't believe that this is a nice infill project. We have a tremendous amount of respect for Mr. Long and realize his intent to maximize the value of his property, but an infill project in an already densely developed area that is prohibited under current and proposed land development rules doesn't make a nice infill for those of us that live here. And we would ask folks to consider that to the extent that you're able to under the sort of rules that you're at for sketch. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Is it appropriate for me to ask a question of Marla related to those comments? Sure. Marla, what do you have to say about this proposal being prohibited? So interim zoning is almost the opposite of the development review process. Interim development review starts with yes. If you meet all of the regulations, your project is approved. Interim zoning starts with no. Your project is prohibited unless you can demonstrate that it does not have any undo or any impacts, any negative impacts on a certain list of criteria. And that's the responsibility of the city council to determine the city council has opened the public hearing on this project, but has undertaken very little discussion at this point. And it is ultimately 100% their responsibility to determine whether to allow this project to proceed under interim zoning. The board's only responsibility at this time is to provide guidance on the current regulations applicable to this project. If city council grants an exception, that's if number one. And if number two, the applicant chooses to proceed with preliminary plan prior to amended land development regulations being adopted, then the project will be subject to the current regulations. If either one of those things doesn't happen, either city council denies the exception and makes them wait for the new regulations or they choose to wait for the new regulations, the board will be reviewing this project against those new standards when they're adopted. Okay, thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. Okay, who's next, Alissa? Next we have Katarina Khosravi. I didn't capture the name. I apologize. I did not, yeah, my name is Katarina Khosravi. I did not want to comment on that. I just put my name on it, I'm a builder. And I think that Francis McDonald just said everything what was related to my thoughts as well and for all residents in South Point Drive. So thank you very much. Thank you very much, Katarina. Okay, so next would be Andrew Chalmik. Andrew, tell us your thoughts. Hi, thank you. Some of my comments will dovetail with some of what Francis said but I'll try and keep this quick and with a little different emphasis. So I understand the Long Family has made a proposal which they believe is a reasonable balance of development for its conservation. But with due respect, the problem is that as more fully described in the letter I submitted, the world is facing an ecology crisis and this proposal is out of step with what we need to do today as to as a land for our children. It sometimes feels, sometimes hard to feel in Vermont because we're so blessed with natural resources and things seem to be this unusual, but they're not. I also know development is not infill to the wildlife looping. Thankfully, the LDR, the current LDR provide the DRB with the tools to ensure that the natural resources on the site are protected. In particular, as Francis mentioned, Article 9.06, Section B3 of the LDRs states that existing natural resources on each site shall be protected through the development plan and references the conservation areas shown in the comp plan. Not the comp plan shows those conservation areas. And with spectrums areas, the comp plan allows only limited encroachment that avoids, minimizes or mitigates the adverse impacts of development which is inconsistent with building homes. There are significant, significant conservation areas on this proposal that are not protected through the development plan. In particular, there are habitat blocks, there's primate soil and deciduous forest. In other proceedings, the DRB has confirmed that these maps be filled with linearity. Thankfully, our environmental LLC just delineated the habitat blocks and identified a significant habitat block on this property that's largely consistent with the habitat block identified as a conservation area on the comp plan. This particular habitat block is part of the most important habitat block in the city of South Bromenden as reviewed by our work. Walking the site, it's also apparent that there's a young deciduous forest on the site also consistent with the comp plan. I've included in the letter I submitted maps which show these conservation areas overlapping with the proposal proposed homes. The construction of single and multifamily homes on these conservation areas is inconsistent with limited encroachment and inconsistent with management practices that are intended to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of development. As a community, a state, or a country, we no longer have the luxury of treating the environment as disposable. We need to do better. I know we can. The DRB should advise the applicant to revise the sketch so as to not conflict with the LDRs as described above. Thank you. You're muted, Don. Thank you, sorry about that. Thank you, Mr. Tonic. Who is next to speak, please? That is everyone that I had signed on, I believe. Thank you. Madam Chair, I just put a note in the chat. Karen LaFevre wants to testify, but she accidentally only replied back to me privately because I was telling her to turn her camera off earlier so she only replied to me. Okay, great. So you can recognize Karen LaFevre, that'd be great. Is it LaFave, LaFevre, LaFevre? Karen, are you there? Hi, it's LaFevre, the good old fashioned French way. I actually meant, thank you, Don. I meant to talk about the BlackRock Development Project and apparently I'm in the wrong place. Okay. Well, that's our next project on the agenda. So stay on if you want to contribute your thoughts to that, but thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak about this project? Okay, thank you for all your comments. Helpful, we will consider them, I assure you. And with that, I think that we can probably conclude the sketch plan and look forward to the next step in the process. Marla, is that correct? It is, and I will ask Jim to rejoin us. Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Long and all members of the Long family and members of the public who wait in. I suspect we'll see you again in the near future. Thank you. Thank all of you too. Okay, next on the agenda is, gotta get the trustee glass, reading glasses out. Continued final plot application SD 2106 of black rock construction for the 6.91 acre wheeler parcel phase of a previously approved master plan for a 450 acre golf course and 354 unit residential development. The plan unit development consists of establishing three lots for the purpose of constructing a public road, 22 dwelling units in two family homes and 10 units in single family homes, 550 Park Road. Before we turn to the applicant, as stated in the staff report, we're gonna change up this review process a little tonight. We've heard a lot of comments from the public about not feeling like they've had adequate time to comment on this project. So we are going to spend probably a little over an hour listening to comments. And I will kick it off with my comments as the acting chair. So this is a very complex project and it's generated a lot of public interest. And I think there's a general feeling that the public, especially neighbors are not feeling heard and have not had adequate time to weigh in on this project. So I would like to speak to that before we move on. In our listening to your comments, reading your comments and I assure you that we have read them all and listened to them all. There appears to be, there appear to be five themes in terms of the comments you've made. And I'd like to list each one of those and say a bit about them. The first is the paper up here. The first is the process. And there's been a lot of comments that it doesn't seem fair that the applicant has had a great deal of time. And yet the public has had very little time to weigh in on this. What I wanna remind people, or maybe not even remind, but explain to you is that this is a quasi-judicial project and it is the responsibility of the board to adjudicate applications. And that means spending a great deal of time with the applicant, identifying issues where they might, the application might conflict with the existing land development regulations. And that takes a great deal of time. Now there is a provision for public input but the process that the board years ago created and that is required by state law does not allow for a back and forth dialogue with the public about questions and issues of concern. So please understand that it is our job as a board to decide if and when the application is consistent with the current land development regulations for South Burlington. We take public comment into consideration but our primary focus is on the land development regulations. And when public comment can help clarify our thoughts about whether a project does conform to the LDRs, we certainly take that into consideration. So that's a bit about the process. Second theme in terms of the comments is the concern about traffic issues and safety. We acknowledge there's been an acknowledgement that Park Road is already a very dangerous road in the winter. It's on a hill, it twists and turns. We hear about the traffic, we hear your suggested solutions and it's important that you understand that we get those comments. We also understand that someone acknowledged that there's another way on a snowy day, there's another way out in your area to get onto Dorset Street again. But we have heard your comments in your concerns about safety and traffic. The third area or third theme is density and it's a small parcel of land. People are concerned about how many homes can be on the land. I will tell you, I will remind you that the maximum number of units that can be placed on this parcel was determined in the settlement agreement between City of South Burlington and Jamgolf. And the number of units that can be built is capped at 32 units. So an applicant can build 32 units or they can build fewer than 32 units. We understand you are concerned with the density. The fourth theme is the architectural design and the interest of the architectural design in this development. Of course, we understand that as neighbors you are concerned about that. Several people have commented that when the applicant said we can sell anything in this market, that's an indication that there's not a commitment to good architectural design. We hear that, we understand that. And I hope you hear that we've pushed back a lot on the architectural development. So we have listened. And the fifth area of concern is the blasting that will occur to break up the ledge and the frequency, the timing, all of that. We will be hearing more about that in an upcoming meeting. There was an email that came out to us today. I personally have not had a chance to read that, but I will. And at a future meeting we will be asking the applicant to speak to this so we can understand a lot more about what's being proposed. So I want you all again to know that we have listened, we are listening and we are prepared tonight to listen some more. And I think what would be helpful, we have heard so many comments and gotten so many written comments that it would be helpful if you have a comment or concern that's already been raised, just tell us that you too have a concern about that, as opposed to going into great detail, unless your comments and thoughts are new, that will save us time and make this process more efficient. So having said that, Alyssa, have you got a sense of how many people are interested in providing testimony? Karen is the only person that has signed in with us. And what is Karen? I haven't gotten that far yet. So if people who are interested in providing verbal testimony at tonight's hearing would write their name in the chat box, that would be helpful. And we can start with Karen and then- Excuse me, I signed in. I already signed in about about an hour ago. Okay, so we have Karen and then we have John. I'm not seeing yours. I don't see John, sorry. I sent mine to Dawn. Okay. I'm sorry. You want to send mine to Dawn. You said you're wet to me. I sent my request to speak to you under public time. I'm not able to see it, that's why I'm not- I think you said that privately to you, Dawn. It's understood now, the situation has been remedied. We'll move forward. Okay. Anyone else who would like to speak, please write your name in the chat box or if you do not have the ability to do so, just say your name and we can add you to the list. So is there anyone who can't add their name to the chat box who would like to have an opportunity to speak? Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It gets too far, I have to excuse myself. Okay, thank you. Thank you. And is Jim back with us? I am, yeah. Thank you, Jim. Thanks. Good to have you back. Okay, how many names are in the chat box now? So it looks like three people would like to comment. I see a different chat box than you. So that's very interesting. Okay. Well, that's certainly manageable. So let us go in order. Karen, tell us please your thoughts. Karen LeFever. Hi. Hi. Can you hear me? We can. Oh, okay. Thank you very much. So appreciated to have a chance to talk with you. I've been involved with this project for many, many months and I have many remaining questions, but of course I'm not gonna bring them all up. I'd say tonight I'd like to make some comments about the traffic safety and hazards on Park Road. Of course, we've sent you many, many letters about that. And I know I have too. So to try to isolate a couple of things. One thing that looking back on the traffic engineers testimony, which I believe was on March 3rd. Can you all hear me okay? Yes, I can. Yes, thank you. I believe that was March 3rd and he gave two sessions of oral testimony and then the clock was stopped. I think you had to go to another topic. And I had been reading the staff comments along with it and there was one I wanted to ask about. It never came up then and it hasn't come up since. It wasn't in the next meeting to be discussed either. So that's one comment. And I think it's not just the comment itself it's what it leads to. It's, first of all, we actually have studied the study quite detailed and we're not traffic experts but a number of us have discussed this among ourselves and we feel it would really be recommended. We would so much urge you to invoke another traffic study that this time studies the right place where it's needed. The one that was done did not, even though the project is called 550 Park Road, ironically, it didn't study Park Road. In fact, the traffic engineer said that when he testified. He said he didn't study any grades, slopes, angles such as such on Park Road. He studied the intersection, very small part of the intersection with Park and Dorset and he looked at the road that is proposed to be built, the new one, which had two new road cuts. Did not discuss anything about the effect the road cuts would have on the already already dangerous geography of Park Road and the sharp angles. In fact, one of the new road segments is planned to be where there's a very sharp angle onto golf course roads entrance. If none of you have ever been up there I invite you up here to just drive along the one mile distance of Park Road and see what we're talking about and also try to imagine it in winter because no matter what you say stopping distances and sight distances are, it's really pretty risky up here in the winter. And I think many of our people are neighbors letters about that. One thing I'd like to ask, well, first I'm gonna get to the comment I asked about before in the March 3rd hearing Marla and Paul, I guess who were the staff people commenting in that for the staff comments? Raised an issue to say, wait a minute, let me find the exact photo. Oh, it was a note to the board in the staff notes that said staff reminds the board that though there are numerous public comments pertaining to traffic safety, the board's authority is limited to the impacts of this project. I'm gonna say that one more time. Staff reminds the board that though there are numerous public comments pertaining to traffic safety, the board's authority is limited to the impacts of this project. And it did not go on to say what the impacts means. I would like to have that clarified and I would like to know what the board thinks that means because basically it's a strong recommendation to the board that whatever is being called impacts here seems not to apply to traffic safety comments by the residents. And if not that, if those are not counting as data, whether you call it anecdotes objective, there are people who have lived your 20 years in less, but many for a long time and there was the word crash was used by the traffic engineer, not surprisingly, I'm sure that's a lot, but a crash does not so much occur on that space, on park road. It's more likely a slide off as we call it. And maybe others call them slide offs. In the winter especially, near the intersections that are particularly dangerous including a new one that's planned to be put in there, people slide off, it's slippery, it's windy, it's blowing, it's drifting, a snow path slid off at once. And it's not something that can be rectified by just plowing it a little more, I don't think, or I would at least like to have the board weigh in on that and also weigh in on do personal comments of people who have lived here for a long time and experienced this up close. Do they count as data when you're considering your views on this? If nobody's gonna answer that, I guess nobody has to answer. I had to unmute myself. I hope you were listening earlier when I said that every comment that has been made is being listened to. So what is the definition of impacts that are ruled out by this comment that I just read? It's the board has reminded that there are numerous comments about traffic safety, but the board's authority is limited to impacts of this project. Is that the same thing you're saying, Don, or is that something? Well, is it appropriate, Marla, for me to share my thoughts about that? Don, I think your original statement at the beginning, talking about the DRB's role in review was, would address this comment. I think there's a slightly different question here. The question is, Park Road exists today in this development. Okay, so, Don, if that's where you're going, I think it's probably fine for you to make that. It is. I think, Karen, one of the things we have to sort out is what's an existing issue and what's kind of the impact of this project is that Park Road is hilly and curvy and whatever. That's a done deal. We have no control over that. It wasn't our decision, whatever, but we have to decide if the proposed project meets the LDRs in terms of safety and impact on safety. Does that make sense? Impacts on safety? Isn't that what all of our comments have been about? Well, and I don't want to get into big dialogue about it, but I think a lot of the comments have focused on the condition of Park Road as it exists today and how dangerous it is. And our job is to look at this parcel, understand that it was approved for up to 32 units in terms of density and apply the LDRs to the project as proposed. Okay, one other is related, but I have not seen anything. I've looked at the drawings that have been submitted and they are a little hard to see online, but I don't see that anything has been addressed about the two new road cuts that would cut right into the bike and the rec path. And there's no amelioration, no discussion, nor is there any about all the neighbors that would move into there, which might be as many as 64 cars. It's certainly a lot of walkers, we would hope. And they would be walking up towards the golf course area. So they would be on the rec path and the bike path. And I'm concerned because when you look at that, you don't see any mention anywhere of what, how has that been taken into account? So I just wanted to make that point if somebody could consider it. Thank you. Okay. Oh, so to wrap up, my last thing was to go back to my beginning is we would really love it if you would consider another traffic study that deals with the part of the road that was left out. Is, are you done? Yeah, I'm done. Okay. Thank you. We will definitely consider that and thank you for your thoughtful comments. Mr. Boussage, John Boussage, you want to take it away? Yeah, I don't, thank you Dawn. And good evening everybody. I don't know how much I'm gonna take away here. And I'm gonna be brief tonight even though you've allowed a lot of time and I wanted to thank you Dawn for letting us go first and I want to publicly acknowledge that. And also the time you took to summarize the comments, that helps us feel a little bit better that the silence is deafening with this thing. I'm sure, yeah, it's hard. It is hard. It's hard for both of us and I acknowledge that. We're at the point now where we don't see a lot, much more benefit from additional public comment. You see this three tonight because we're talked out, we're written out, we're there. You know what the concerns are. We know what they are. We don't want to be repetitive and I'm not gonna be repetitive tonight at all. We would have preferred, and I think you all know this more conversation, kind of what you and Karen just had there. No decision making, just clarification as we go along and know what the status is of things. Not really you're thinking about, just what's the status of those four big areas? We have no idea where you stand on things or what you're thinking. And that's frustrating to us as you well imagine. We respect the process that you have, but it does create a wall of silence if you will that it leaves a lot of things unknown and you ask some good questions to Karen. You ask some good questions to the previous discussion over on Long Drive or wherever it is, you ask clarifying questions. And I think that's a safe thing to do and it makes people feel they're heard and it makes people feel that they're a part of the process. So anything you can do to facilitate that with us would be really appreciated. So what I'm gonna do is just leave you with four questions and I'll put those in writing to you. I'm gonna leave you with four questions tonight. And they are on our, because we feel that they're unresolved. They're unknown and Karen touched on some of them with the first one. And you've addressed these Dawn in your comment. First one, I'll give these to you. I'll send them to Marla is density. And the question is, do you believe that you have the authority to reduce the number of homes proposed to be built on those 6.9 acres? You think you can change the number and have the authority to do that. And I've taken that question from my April 9th memo that I sent to all of you. The second question is about traffic. And Karen asked this too, but the question is, will you order a second traffic study since the original one, as she said, did not address the issue of the traffic and pedestrian safety where the proposed new access roads are. And the solution of driving out the other way is not a solution at all. We're concerned about that question and the other 18 homes are gonna be built across the street. It's not a part of the wheeler land swaps. It's, there's another section there is under 18 homes that are gonna access Park Road and we're terribly concerned about that. And then the design you have, and you acknowledge that Don, you have pushed back a little bit on that, but are you, do you remain concerned with the designs and the building materials proposed for the new homes as we are? And Mark had a big discussion with that last time. So that's still out there. Where are you, what's the status with that? And the last one is blasting. Are you as alarmed as we are about building homes on so much ledge and the months of noise, of blasting and removal and the disruption that's gonna be necessary for such a major undertaking? So those four questions I'm gonna put back to you. I'm assuming there's no questions back to me if there are, but I'd love to engage in clarifying my questions. But if that's not gonna be possible tonight, I respect that. They are unresolved and unwrung right now. And soon as you can get us some definition of those, it'd be most appreciated. So that's my comment for Tony. Thank you, Mr. Vosanj. I think it's clear that we're on the same page in terms of, to use it for mon expression, when you boil it down and sugar it off, we know what the key issues are. So we're on the same page. The only thing I can say about the dialogue piece is that this process as laid out does not lend itself to that kind of dialogue. When the applicant hears public comments and refines their application and resubmits over time, that helps them understand some of the concerns. But our job is to adjudicate this application and decide if it meets the land development regulations. I understand that. It's just when you come back with clarifying questions, not decision-making questions, clarifying questions, it makes someone feel hurt. Sure. I mean, you're asking, what did you mean by? Or when you ask Karen a couple of those things, that was very satisfying. And you don't want a long meeting of that stuff. Just a few bits like that goes a long way. So I will tell you that in terms of clarifying questions, I think that we understand your concerns about density. We understand and hear your concerns about traffic and your wish to have a traffic study invoked. We hear your concerns about design. And I think you know that we have some concerns and we are going to learn more about blasting at the next step in this process. So I'm not sure that we need any more clarification because I think we're clear that these are the issues that you're concerned about. And that will help us focus some of our consideration as we deliberate on this project once it's done, once the hearing is closed. Well, thank you very much. That's all I can ask at this time. So thank all of you for your work and listening tonight. And so much appreciated, thank you. Okay, thank you for your comments. You bet. Who else has comments to offer on this project? I have Anne-Marie Plant. Hi, Anne-Marie, go ahead. Thank you. Going to share my webcam, I think. Dawn, thank you for summarizing the concerns. I still don't feel the question about the design requiring two entrances to Park Road has been adequately addressed. And I would just like to bring that up again. Oh, I think, hmm, did you hear me? We hear you, but we don't see you. I see it. Now? We see her. Okay, great. Did you hear what I said? That I didn't feel the questions about the design requiring two entrances on Park Road has been adequately addressed. Yes, we can hear you just fine, Anne-Marie. Okay, perfect. Thank you. And there's just one other thing I wanna bring up. You know, BlackRock Construction is currently in violation with their permit for long drive, specifically for not meeting the environmental requirements and some pending legal action. So I was wondering if the DRB was aware of that and what impact that might have on the project. Thank you. I'm going to let Marla respond to that. Sure, thanks. So, state law is that a developer cannot be punished for an action occurring on a separate project as part of a different environment. And so that is not relevant. The long drive action while it certainly influences people's perception of BlackRock as a developer is not a legal basis for any of the board's decision-making. Thank you, Marla. Anne-Marie, do you have any more comments? So specifically about them not meeting their environmental requirements that doesn't give the board any pause about this project? Marla? I mean, I don't think I can state it any more clearly. State law does not allow a project of persons performance on another project to have any influence on their application for a different project. But I will just add, Anne-Marie, that that's not to say that it doesn't have an influence on the public's comments and concerns and ability to trust the applicant and that they'll fold those into their comments. So I think it's fair to say that some of those comments or some of those concerns have been reflected in some of the comments people have made. I don't know if that's helpful, but... Absolutely. Thank you. Don, can I say something? Sure, Mark, go ahead. I would comment on that issue and also direct comment to Marla's issue comment in saying that BlackRock's performance on long drive, it wouldn't matter who the developer was, it was an experience, not the developer that is lending myself to how I'm reviewing future projects in like the technical blasting report led to removal. It wouldn't matter if it was BlackRock or someone else. So that's why I think to Marla's point, we don't look at previous developer projects and how we review current ones, but we do use narrative and historical experiences in how we review and apply further protections on projects. If that can clear it up and explain how we utilize experiences and narrative in reviewing projects and improving or denying and providing conditions. Mark, that was very helpful. Absolutely, very helpful. Thank you. And I would say that more members of more experience can correct me or emphasize it. The condition sections of approval is a way where a board encapsulates further comments rather than just approved as shown on the plans, but conditions are things that help to, where the board has some discretion. Mark, Marla, if I'm capturing that correctly. The board imposed reasonable conditions subject to various criteria spelled out in the bylaws of what kinds of conditions a board can apply. So it looks at the regulations, but there's a, and they can approve a project that is consistent with the bylaws. That's the purpose of the bylaws. It lays out the ground rules, the boundaries, the track, and all, and invest property rights as long as a development is consistent with the bylaws. That's the main principle, but the conditions, so anyway. Right, I think that's the point. Dan's point is very valid. The board approves, organizes a project, but not in a vacuum. The board approves, organizes a project with conditions, and everything you've seen until this point is the board providing feedback to the applicant. From time to time to get an application, that is not problematic in any way. And the board writes a very short decision and says, build your project as you've proposed it. It's great, go ahead. It's a small building expansion or whatever. But the overwhelming majority, as I'm sure all of you have seen because you've done so much homework on this project, is in decision, there is a lengthy list of conditions that are how the board requires the applicant to modify the project to best the land development regulations. Thank you for that, Marl. That's really helpful. If I can just add one more comment on that, is the fact that when it comes to our, I guess negotiations, when it comes to conditions, if we get to that point on a project, one thing that I've experienced in my lengthy 10 years of DRB board members, nothing is gained by not asking for something from a developer, but they are also bound, and so are we by the LDRs. Well, they're not bound by the LDRs. Our decisions are bound by the LDRs and our agreements we make with the developer. We can ask them to go above and beyond a requirement of the LDRs, but they're not required to do so. And if we base our decision on a developer not agreeing to go beyond the requirements of the LDR, we're opening up ourself to an appeal. So that's why developers in general want to provide a good project, and they also want to have a good working relationship with the DRB, the city, and the neighbors. So our experience has been that, as long as we're reasonable, developers have been reasonable in their agreements when they go above and beyond LDR regulations. And that's when we throw them into the decisions and the conditions. And that's also where it becomes very important when we do technical reports and reviews to provide us further information that we can throw into conditions on a project and provide additional protection. We are found by the LDRs, but it does become that gray area of nothing, nothing's gained by not asking. Great comment, Mark. Emory, do you have any other comments to make before we move on? No, thank you, Don. Anyone else would like to, is there anyone else who would like to make comments about the Park Road project? Are you allowed to say an additional comment? Sure, go ahead, Karen. Okay, thank you. Minus the blasting. I'm so glad that you have invoked a technical review of that. I was, frankly, on a human level horrified to hear the extent of Ledge, and I had brought this up last fall with an employee of BlackRock. It was not a surprise to BlackRock that they had alleged to deal with how much and how late in the process this has come out. It's just, I think, really insulting to people. I'm glad that the Board has reacted by going into a technical review, and I do hope that there are other concerns that you have in mind that I don't know if they'll be considered a part of a technical review, but environmental regulations, a wildlife, the fact that trees are now being taken back, that they're being, you know, we're supposed to be gotten kept. Now they may not be able to appear because we might interfere with the blast. It's just, I don't know what to say beyond that, but I do hope that you will look into, what shall we call them, the more human elements, the day-to-day experience of what it would be like to live through that for several years, because they're saying this project could take up to five years, even though the blasting went into all of it. We're going to be looking at quite a mess, in my opinion, and I would, I don't know if that's a land development regulation, I'll just leave it there. Thank you for listening and thank you for giving us this time. Thank you, Karen. The only comment I want to make about that is, I know the blasting is, as a whole, other dimension to this, but let's not forget that any of us who are living in a place that was built created some disruption when our homes were being built. So that is somewhat of a fact of life, fact of life, but the blasting does add some complications to this. So thank you for your comment. Anyone else would like to make a comment? Okay. Madam Chair, would it be appropriate would it be appropriate to ask if the applicant has anything they wish to offer and update or thoughts or anything like that since we have time? It absolutely would and we have a couple of comments we need to get through and so I was going to remind the applicant, ask the applicant who's here for the applicant and remind them that they're still under oath and if there are any new people representing the applicant I need to swear them in. So thank you for that prompting. Okay, who was here for the applicant? Benjamin Avery for Black Rock Construction and Brian Currier from O'Leary and Burke is present as well. Okay, thanks Ben. Now, Brian, you've been sworn in, haven't you? Yes, I have. Okay, thank you. So I'd remind you you're still under oath. Before we look at the remaining few staff comments, Ben, do you or Brian have anything you wanna add, update us on, et cetera? Certainly the public comments have been heard and we've taken them in and we've made attempts to amend the project to the best of our ability based on those comments and certainly keep them in mind as we move forward. The outstanding items, I know we have some smaller housekeeping items to talk about tonight but really the items that we look forward to discussing in early June are some revised designs based on the board's feedback which we received a couple of weeks ago. That feedback was very helpful and we appreciate actually the board gave us some ideas that we didn't have. So I certainly think that's going to be a productive discussion. Secondly, to do with the blasting, I've only, the technical review came in at noon today so I haven't really had a good opportunity to review the specific points there but we look forward to reviewing that. We will have our blaster review and offer written comment for the board and the public through have a chance to look at prior to the next meeting but I'm relatively confident that we can work through those comments and find common ground. We're getting some feedback. I would just like to remind everyone on listening in to mute your audio so that we don't get feedback. Thank you. Okay, thanks Ben. Anything else you want to add to that? No, I don't think so. There are with architecture and blasting being addressed at the next meeting that really leaves us with three smaller comments to wrap this up. The first one being pre-construction grade and height and Brian, I'll let you jump in but I do believe we've solved this problem, correct? Yes, we have been. We, so our solution to this issue was to lower the roadway in front of unit 1718 slightly drop the garage grade so they're no more than a foot or two below the new road grade and that allowed us to meet a 20 foot building height measured to the midpoint of the roof as the DRB requested last time we were here. I think staff has reviewed the revised plan and agrees that it's a good solution and yeah, I think it turned out into a beneficial thing for the neighboring rec path and I don't think it's gonna create any long-term maintenance issues either so I think it's a win-win. Good, thank you. Board members, any comments or questions about that? No, I just, I appreciate them going through the exercise of resolving it to the standard set forth in the requirements of this parcel, so. Agreed, thanks Mark. Any other comments? Marla, are you good with that feedback? South considers this comment has been addressed. Okay, the next comment. Staff considers that if the board is not going to accept the applicant's request for waiver of the translucent criteria, the applicant may need to revise their buildings so the interior layout can accommodate additional glazing. Therefore, staff recommends the board provide feedback on whether they will accept the applicant's request. So I have a question about this. How can they revise the, how does revising the interior layout accommodate additional glazing? So does that mean put windows on the other sides of the building, Marla? It could. So what happened here is that there's this requirement that the 35% of the buildings translucent be on the south facing facade. They asked for a waiver and provided their reasoning for the waiver and then the board just moved on. There was no like, sounds good, doesn't sound good. If the board is not going to accept this waiver request, they need to know because they may not be able to add a window on the south side because of the way the room's really down on the inside. So the board can provide some general feedback on whether they're going to accept this waiver request. I think it's important for the applicant to know that before the hearing. Sure. So, board, what do you think? And Mark is the architect. I'm sure you have some thoughts about this but I'm sure other people have thoughts too. Well, I'll weigh in and ask a question of Marla before I answer this. Is this the Southeast Quadrant design rate guidelines which state garages should be set back, isn't that? If that's the case, isn't this an item that we've sort of, I don't want to say put to bed, but I didn't say 35% of the south facing walls should be translucent glazing? Not shall. It's sort of like a recommendation. Well, if this is the 9.08, but let me get to it. Yeah. That's just all. Because I know we've discussed this in the past and it's sort of like it's a recommended guideline, not a shall do it. Now, if I'm incorrect, you know. Give me a second. Yeah, yep. Because I can also then speak to the reality of it is that we've had the discussion at the board level in previous years and also in smaller groups that the 35%, it's also almost counterintuitive to energy efficiency because extra glazing is not as energy efficient as solid wall. And that's not to say no, anyone wants a solid four sides of make it all super energy efficient. Some of it goes to quality of life by gathering Southern exposure. But when that trade off occurs to force a certain layout or force a certain number of now of windows, you know, like I said, we've gotten commentary and input from efficiency per month that it's not as productive as solid wall. And that's why it's a should. And it's been a negotiating point that we've sort of worked with applicants on bigger projects. So, Mark, are you... I have it on the screen. Thank you. Yeah, okay. Are you suggesting, Mark, that we grant the waiver? I want to read this and see what it says first because I said in the past, we've always... So yeah, see the residential buildings must be oriented to the street. That's not a negotiable, you know, in addition to the street, primary entries must face the street. Secondary building entries may open on to the garage and parking areas. That's a canner may or may not. But then it says a minimum of 35% of translucent windows and surfaces should be oriented to the South in the Southeast Quadrant sub-district. So residential buildings should orient the roof lines to maximize solar gain potential to the extent possible within the context of overall standards regulating plan. I'm not saying I advocate for this. I'm just saying that when it comes to reviewing and applying the regulations, we have had the attorney weigh in and tell us when it's a should, shall, must, may, that's very clear guidelines as to what we can and can't require. When it says must and shall, that's not negotiable. They have to do it. When it says may or should, that's a negotiating point. It's a discussion point. It's not something we can force to have happen. It's something that they're recommending is what they're hoping to see happen in these developments and hoping to see in design guidelines. It's a recommendation that applicants should strive for and we should be looking for. But our past testimony that we've gotten from city attorneys, it's not something we can require or dictate. That's why I always whenever I see that, I sort of say, well, it's not a gray area. It's a, we'd like it to happen. So, when applicants do provide it, that's great. But when they don't, it's okay. What can you do to try to get a little closer? So, Mark, just as a nod to that, I don't know if the board recalls we've had numerous meetings at this point, but between the initial submittal and our more recent meeting, we did increase glazing on both the south and western-facing sides of the houses along Dorset as a nod to this request in the LDRs. And I do believe, Brian, can correct me if I'm wrong. I actually believe we hit the 35% on the western-facing side of the house. The problem is, is that stairways run up either side of the house, which is center hall stairways are not always efficient. And that can make one side of a house or another harder to hit that percentage of glazing. But I do know that we did add some glazing on those single families to the south to really try our best to hit that number. Yeah, John, you're muted. Thank you. Any other comments from the board? Well, I would say it's staff comment number two, staff comment number two is sort of dressed and it's a waiver is not really necessary. It's an odd regulation where it uses strong language like minimum, but then it says should. It is what it is. So I would say a waiver is not really even necessary if it's not really a true requirement. So is it fair to say that board members, we feel that if a waiver is necessary, we're willing to grant it? I would say so, yeah. Anyone disagree with that? Okay, let's move on to the next comment, please. Flexibility in design. So the intent of this discussion is really to identify what items will be in the zoning administrator's discretion as we bring an application, a zoning application forward to construct a building. And we did hear from the board at a previous hearing that our initial language was quite broad. So we took the opportunity to narrow that language and the language that's before you tonight. We feel addresses are the ability for a specific homeowner to make some limited decisions mostly to do with color scheme and or foundation type, but really the intent here is to keep the spirit of the design as approved by this board in place through that process of applying for the zoning permit. So staff is simply recommending that the board weigh in on if they feel this language is appropriate. Just to sort of walk the board through what they're seeing on the screen. So what Ben said is 100% correct. They had proposed some administrative search discretion. There was some question about, well, if we're going through all this process to design these homes exactly, why should that be this discretion? We as staff, and you guys have told us no before, you know, thou shalt do no more than what the applicant is asking for. We as staff try very hard though it may not seem it to limit process. So if there can be some flexibility, appropriate flexibility granted as part of an application that prevents the applicant from having to come back to the board for another final plot amendment, when they want to do something simple, like, you know, enclose a porch, we would like them to have that ability. So that's why we've proposed these, these four flexibilities that are shown on the screen, actually Delilah, I think it might go on to the top of the next page. And there's a fifth one. So that was our intention in allowing these modifications. I also in draft, in drafting these, we tried to, we tried to, we tried to, you know, in the first four minutes was the first work. We tried to, we tried to outline the significance of the application in allowing these modifications. I also in draft, in drafting these, we tried to respond to Dan's comment at a here, for member Dan's comment at a previous hearing. About. The difference between an initial application and homeowner's subsequent ability. So some of these proposed conditions say something like at the time of initial zoning permit application. deliberations. But the intent of those is after their initial, after their initial building is constructed, if that private homeowner wants to paint their house, you know, hot pink, then they have the ability to do so. We don't propose to limit that in the future. Madam Chair, may I ask Ben, what do you think of those five excellently crafted points by Marla? Yes, go ahead, Dan. We are fine with all of these. It is not our intent to utilize this to to to make changes. I mean, part of the reason that we're spending extra meetings now and time and effort and appreciate the board's feedback, Mark's feedback. And as you know, we've asked for that feedback is because we want to get through this process and know exactly what we're building. We're really just trying to give, again, the homeowner some ability to to be a little flexible with some finite details. But there isn't really a whole lot of bandwidth here. And that's not what we're looking to do. And we do understand the spirit of the regulations. So we're not looking to color outside those lines. These these points are fine with us. OK, thank you. I don't have the report. Is there is there another comment? No, that leaves us with legend design. OK, all right. So I think we're at a point where we're going to continue this hearing to what date, Marla? June 1st, June 1st. And at that point, we'll hear more about design and ledge removal. And, Don, could I have one question to clear a point of clarification, Don, if I may? Sure. Don, just thank you for that. The developers said for the next meeting, they come prepared to talk about architecture and design. That's fine. But there's two other issues remain unresolved, which are traffic and density. And those have to be addressed by the developer as well. So let's not let those issues disappear. It's important that they're on the June meeting as well. I think that I believe those issues have been heard and will be part of our consideration. I'm not sure that we need to resolve those while we're still in the hearing stage. But thank you for reminding me of the importance of those. I don't want to be dismissed by the developer. You know, like there's more out there than those two issues. And I know you know that, but I wanted to be sure that June 2nd meeting, June 1st meeting, that they're still there to be dealt with in some way. Thank you for that comment, Mr. Blasange. Yeah, so Mr. Blasange, until we close the hearing and issue a decision in one way or another, everything's still on table and open for discussion because we are always taking testimony and until we close it, we are. So, yes, I agree with you. Thank you, Mark. Appreciate that. Any other comments before we we're continuing it. So what do we call this? Not closure, but I'll make a motion that we continue application is to June 1st. Do I hear a second? I'll second. Thank you, Alissa. All in favor of continuing this hearing to June 2nd, say aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. Any nays. OK, it will be continued. We will see you in a month. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. OK, moving on, we are agenda item number seven is preliminary application. SD 2113 of O'Brien Farm Road, LLC to amend a previously approved preliminary plat for the second phase of a previously approved master plan of up to 458 dwelling units and up to 45,000 square feet of office space. The amendment consists of allowing the final plat submission to be submitted in six sub phases at 255 Kennedy Drive. Who is here for the applicant? Evan Langfield with O'Brien Brothers. Hi, Evan. Andrew Gill with O'Brien Brothers as well. Hi, Andrew. Nice to see you guys again. Do you really mean that? Certainly. Yeah, sure. Yeah. Always a pleasure to see you guys, too. OK, you have been. Sworn in. No, you have the new application. So this is a new swearing and a new everything. OK, thank you, Marla. Let me just say a few words about preliminary plat. This is the hold on. Yes. So this is the the first formal hearing after sketch plan. And we will swear the applicants in and then move forward with comments and questions from staff. So Andrew and Evan, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. I do. But thank you. Do you want to say anything before we move ahead with staff comments? Andrew or Evan? No, we appreciate the time and effort here on this. It's an amendment to our preliminary plat decision that was issued last fall, just seeking to sort of help to be able to stage the project and bring it to the board in smaller chunks as we proceed forward with different components. So we review comments. I think they're pretty limited and it seems like we're pretty well aligned here. So we're eager to have the conversation with you guys and keep things moving. You know, I didn't ask for any recusals or disclosures. I know that Stephanie is refused and I want to just go on the record as saying I own a home in a brand farms. But I believe that I can be objective in participating as a board member on this application. And if anyone has any questions or issues with that, I hope you'll raise them with me. But OK, shall we move on to staff comments? Thank you, Delilah. I assume you're driving. OK, the first one is staff recommends the board discuss the applicant's proposed timeline, additional impacts of the applicant's proposal are described below. So. All right, so you're meaning. The the first section, Section A is phasing. The first staff comment is only about the timing of the phasing. The later staff comments deal with other elements of the phasing. OK, this is just a question about they've asked for this specific timeline. Let's discuss the timeline and then we'll move on. OK, the board members, what are your thoughts about the timeline as suggested? So maybe we could have Andrew and then kind of summarize what their timeline is. Perfect. Yeah, so you can take a look at the I think the blue text here in the center, the three points are the text of our application. Is that right, Marlon? Yes. Yeah, so essentially in the phasing application, we had requested that we could have 18 months from this permanent amendment to file the first phase of the final plat. And then four years of this permanent amendment, we would file for an additional building that was not included in the first phase and that that requirement could be extended up to six years if the initial phase contained more than two buildings such that only three buildings would remain to be final plat by the fourth year and that within six years, all six buildings would be applied for final plat. And I mean, this is essentially the gist of the entire request here to the board and to give you a little bit of background in terms of the reasoning behind the sort of request. You know, I think you guys were all part of the review for the preliminary plat dealing with all six buildings at the same time, all six parking lots, all six sets of impacts was a lot to deal with. But as we got into preparing for final plat, it became pretty clear that logistically, it just didn't make a lot of sense to be planning out a building that isn't going to be built for four or six years. And when you think about the size or scale of the buildings that are being proposed in the project, you're looking at the site plan now. If we were to proceed with our first phase, our initial phase, you know, as currently planned, which is to do live 13 and 15 simultaneously, we would be applying for that final plat and building that project over the period of about 18 to 24 months just in construction. Then there'd be a lease up period, a stabilization period. And then we would be looking to proceed with with the next phase of the project. And so if you sort of put it in those terms, you know, it could be two and a half or three years after we started before we were we were coming forward with and able to build the next building. And there are concerns there in terms of how the market might shift over time. If we've locked in a certain unit mix or a type of unit, but that's not in demand as so much in four years, you know, maybe the square footages will be different. Maybe the market rents will warrant a different type of product to finish or exterior treatment or amenity. You maybe the city will have different vision of the sorts of amenities or things that they'll be valuing. And so we wanted to just set ourselves up to be able to over time come in, get those final plots solidified and sort of create that framework that just made sense under the existing preliminary plat approval, which sort of solidifies the overall project parameters. And I think, you know, when we were looking at this primary gist of the staff comment was that the 18 months from the date of this extension for the first phase seemed a bit far out. You know, I think we did talk about that. And I think, you know, waiting for this hearing and getting this feedback or this potential phasing in place from the board has sort of held us back a little bit from proceeding with the planning for the first phase because we didn't really know that there was certainty that we could do just a portion of it. What we would say is that I think it makes sense to sort of rather than request 18 months, maybe we could look at dropping that down to just say, when there's amendment issues, we would have the standard 12 month period to get the final plat filed for the first phase and then leaving the rest of it intact. I think everybody was more in support of that future timeline. So the 12 months clock would start over if this preliminary application were approved for an automatic. So if we would have 12 months to file the first phase after this and then, you know, within four years, we would be proceeding with the third building and within six years we would be proceeding with the whole project. You know, that would be the timing that would work fine for us. So what does the board think about allowing four years for the second or six years for the third if the second does not include two buildings? Would you say that again, please, Marla? Yeah, and I think I said it backwards too, actually. So if the board approved this, the applicant will have. They've modified their proposal now. They'll help us submit their final plan for their building. Then they're requesting. Four years. From the approval date to submit the final plot for their next building. And then within six years. From this from this. Approval, they would have to submit all the rest. Just to clarify, so there would be, we were saying that by four years, we would have three plots submitted, three of the six lots because the I think the first phase is anticipated to be two buildings. I think is what the text is saying. Mark said, I thought the text said that if you file the first two buildings at the same time, you would extend up to six years for the second phase. Only three buildings remain to be filed for final plot by the fourth year. So oh, if it contains more than two buildings, got it. OK, all right. So within four years, you'll build three, you'll file for three buildings. And then they're remaining in the last remaining three, the last two last two. Yep. I mean, I think that that timing is a little bit in recognition that our first phase is is the majority of the the unit counts. You know, our first planned phase is about 13 and 15 as one project. You know, if the preliminary plot, I don't have all the unit numbers memorized, but I think that was two hundred and twenty one of the. Three hundred and ninety or so units. Right. Can I say it one more time? Does that make it a little longer? Wait, wait, wait, wait. Can only hear one person at a time. Marla, go ahead. I just want to say it one more time because I want to be really precise. So what the proposal is, is to submit at least one building, one lot's final application within six months. And then within four years to have only four buildings remaining, right? Got me if I'm wrong. And then within six years have submitted the final plots for all of them. Andrew, is that correct? You're smiling. So what does that mean? You're muted, Andrew. No, I'm not muted. Sorry, I'm just looking at the way that I wrote this and trying to think of whether I could have written it a little bit clearer. I think that the confusion is that we're currently contemplating our first phase to be two buildings. I think we're going to say and we're OK with that changing. Yeah, I think what we're trying to say is that if our first phase is two buildings, then our next phase within four years would be another building. But if our first phase was only was only one building, that we would be our next phase would happen in the fourth year could just be one more. I don't think I think it's confusing. So, you know, maybe there's a way to simplify it to just say that the first phase will happen within 12 months will be at least one lot and that the second phase would happen by the fourth year and that by year four, we would have filed at least two more buildings, something along. So by year four, you'll have three lots worth of final plots submitted. And by year six, you'll have six lots worth of final. Yes. OK, got it. Thank you. That's more straightforward. OK, so now that we understand what the question is, what is to think about it? It makes sense to me. But I'm not an expert in this. So what do the rest of you think? I'm OK with it. I mean, you're talking about a lot of construction and, you know, it sounds like a long period of time. But, you know, you're you're you're talking about six buildings over six years, you know, right? And, you know, and that's that's what they're they're sort of the testing to it could go quicker, you know, but not slower. And I think six buildings over six years is reasonable. And just for clarity, Marla, help me out. So within within that four years, we have three of the six lot, but they're also still governed by. They would have to file or final plot within 12 months of. Within 12 months of what were if we were to approve what's currently on the table, right? No, so they're requesting a modification to that timeline. The zoning permit after final plot timeline would remain. Well, you wouldn't be getting a final design for each of these buildings until the final final plot, right? Right. Comments from the board. OK, Marla, do you think you have what you need? You think you have what we need? Yes, I think that if the board has any concerns about this, you know, I think that generally the sense of getting from the board is they are OK with this exact or a similar scheme. And if the board chooses in their deliberative wisdom to slightly modify the scheme, I think we can do that without additional testimony. Great. Great. Any other comments from the board before we move on? This is Jim, I'm comfortable with it. OK, thanks, Jim. OK. Thank you for scrolling down. OK, now we're going to the next one. Comment two, could you there? Could you scroll a little bit more, please, Delilah? Thank you. Now, scroll up, please. Perfect. OK. Staff reached out to the Affordable Housing Committee for suggestions on how to ensure compliance with this criterion. The Affordable Housing Committee reviewed the question at their regular meeting on April 27th and recommended that the board require the applicant to commit to having an average number of bedrooms in the building on not 12 to be two. This recommendation is based on the assumption that the market rate units are unlikely to have more than two bedrooms. Staff recommends the board discuss what condition to include to ensure compliance with this criterion. Evan and Andrew, what are your thoughts? I will I can just fill in a little bit on the sort of, you know, the background. So the, you know, the text there in bold is the text of the inclusionary ordinance. We talked a lot about the inclusionary requirements at this preliminary plat. The preliminary plat decision that was issued, it allowed for the inclusionary requirement to be placed in a single building on not 12. So this this point by staff, I think it's a good question. It's saying essentially, you know, the regulations require that the the main number of bedrooms of inclusionary units be I think it's no fewer than the mean number of bedrooms of the market units. And so the question is, if you're proposing the market rate units in pieces, but you're segregating the inclusionary units to one building, you know, if we build the inclusionary building in the first phase, how do you know what the mean number of bedrooms is for the market rate units that haven't been built or pushed through to final plat yet? I think it's a good question. You know, we had talked a little bit internally about it and we, you know, our feeling is that rather than push forward with the affordable housing committee's recommendation of the two bedroom requirement, what we would say is that if the affordable building were built first and the number of bedrooms, the mean number of bedrooms is 1.5 or 2 or whatever it is that the market rate project would be designed to meet that to match that mean or that if it were a higher, if we were required to increase the number of affordable bedrooms, that those future final flats would just be required to produce additional inclusionary bedrooms so that the mean would end up being correct in the end. We feel pretty confident that we can design the market rate units to meet the mean of the affordable units if they're built first or vice versa. Right. Affordable units are built at the time that they're planned that we can do that and we can compensate for it on the on the market rate side needed. Yeah, we're comfortable being held accountable to that down the road. If it if there's differentiation. OK, thank you. Ford, what are your thoughts? Does it make sense? Can I could I ask a clarifying question first? Again, it's kind of playing catch up on this project. How many total inclusionary units are there in the end? And are they if I'm reading this correctly, are they all proposed to be in one building? They are proposed to be in one building and the number of units is how many Andrew. I think that well, it depends on how many total market rates are proposed. You know, eventually, but it was between 48 and 52, I believe. Is that sort of range we were looking at? Of affordable or I think the inclusionary required inclusion. Does that mean that in one building, almost all the units would be inclusionary? As the as approved in the preliminary plat, yes. And just so you know, at 12. Dan, we did talk about that a lot and because of their partnership with Champlain Housing Trust and the complex financing, they had to put all these units together in one building. OK, on one thing to comment on in that regards. The staff comments do note that the applicant no longer intends to contract with Champlain Housing Trust. Oh, I. Oh, really? Comment number two. And also just to note, Sandy Dooley is online and she'd like to testify and she's a member of the Affordable Housing Committee. Sure. OK, I'm not sure when you want to bring her in. I'm just letting you know. I just I just want to say presumably the because I thought it was sort of a principle of planning. And again, I'm not I'm a regional planner. I'm not a practicing land use planner all the time, like Marla and others. So was this this putting them all in the one building seems to violate a principle of segregationist type stuff like, oh, that's the affordable building. That's the subsidized people rather than blending the units within so there isn't that identification of oh, you're the handout people or whatever people might want to label the affordable at. So was this, unfortunately, just the only way it would work? There has been extensive discussion of that exact question. Well, I mean, regulations do explicitly allow them to be in a single building if it meets your criteria. And those are, you know, well integrated and not distinguishable from the exterior, etc., etc. So they are being met in in all ways. OK, all right. It's yeah, it is you have to do what's workable and versus the optimal. So I understand. So that's all if I could provide a little bit of color commentary on how things transpired, which is that we did come before the Development Review Board for a number of months when we were in discussions with Champlain Housing Trust, which was a discussion that took place over the course of a year plus. And the intent was definitely to move forward with Champlain Housing Trust. And we were trying to solidify that relationship. And for various reasons, they were unable to solidify that, I guess, to our satisfaction. And so at some point when we were not able to get the commitments that we needed, we ended up partnering with another developer to fulfill that requirement. So that's that's where things how things transpired. It's not that we had any desire to part ways with Champlain Housing Trust. And I think it's an amicable relationship. It's just that we needed more of a commitment. And so it's it's not really anything different other than there's a different developer providing those units. Thank you for forbearance of the explanation, everybody. Thank you, Evan. And thank you for the question. So does this in any way change the thinking about including having all of these units in one building or do the same issues of financing efficiency or whatever apply here? Our understanding is that the same issues that Champlain Housing Trust has to deal with regarding their financing are the same issues that are at play here. So it's still nothing is changing in terms of, you know, the building that would house the the inclusionary units still has to be commensurate quality and integrated into the overall site. And it's likely or highly likely that there may be market rate units that are also included in the inclusionary buildings as well. There's just the program. It would be more units that are affordable at 80 percent of AMI or below than would be market rate. And you had talked about maybe some market rate units being included in that from the get go. So it's it's a possibility. It really comes down to the financing viability of it. Sure. OK. All right. So I know Sandy is going to want to speak when we open this up for public comment. Any other board questions at this point? Or comments? Marla, do you have anything to add or ask for? I think there was a third public or a third staff comment. No, I know, I know. But before we move on. No. OK. OK, you want us to confirm the assessment that which refers to the roadways drive should both be required with the first final plat application rather than at separate stages as requested by the applicant. Staff considers the applicant may request a phased construction schedule for the roads as part of the final plat application that includes their design, but that the road should be constructed no later than the first building on each. What do people think? I'll confirm this assessment. I think I just had a little bit of trouble understand. I think this is saying that will propose both roadways and the roadway designs simultaneous with the first building. Is that right? I think that's that's in line with what we're thinking and and is is totally fine. Marla. Yes, so the suggestion here, they've indicated that there's sort of this pink road and the brown road and that those could be separate phases. Staff's recommendation here is that both the pink road and the brown road come in with the first final application, though the applicant is free to request that the construction of those roads be phased. The design of the road should be with the first final plot. OK, makes sense and is is perfectly fine. I agree. OK. Any other board comments or questions about the staff comments before we move to public comment hearing none? Sandy, I know you're on the line. Are there any other? I seem to get a different list of people in my chat. So can anyone tell me if there are other people who want to make public comment who have registered? Just Sandy. OK. So we'll have Sandy to speak. And then I'll ask if anyone else wants to. So Sandy, how are you doing? And thank you for staying on until this late hour of the night. Do I need to be sworn in? No. OK, because I was going to say, I think I was sworn in the last time. Yeah, I think Brian Sullivan was chairing and he swore in all the public members, but we don't need to do that. OK. First of all, I just want to clarify the staff comments. And I should have called Marla earlier. The the proposal for two is based on a discussion between Chris Trauma, the committee chair and myself. It was not something that was discussed at our meeting. We we had a full agenda. And I think Chris and I were comfortable with with proposal. I won't get into any detail, but there there seems to be a little disconnect between the information I've gotten from CHT and what I've heard from the O'Brien's. But I won't go into that. That's not necessary. Our I'd like to know more about and with CHT, they do several multiple more bedrooms than two, three bedrooms and four. And that also, although that means fewer inclusionaries are required, that's that's a goal. And of course, it's not required. But and and so I guess I'm. Is this another nonprofit developer or is are you going to develop them all? I'm I'd be interested in the flexibility if there's flexibility to actually scatter the inclusionary units if if there's not going to be a separate developer that has all these, you know, getting the money from the Housing and Conservation Board and and everybody else who has a million requirements. And and one of the reasons why it sort of almost makes it necessary for the CHT to put their units in one building. I will mention they virtually always have some market rate units because people that are in affordable units don't always continue to be eligible and they their funding requirements require annual screening for income eligibility and people get raises and that kinds of things. And so sometimes people become ineligible and so they can reclassify the apartment as market rate and still meet their their requirements to their funders. So I'd like to have a sense of is there more flexibility given you have a different partner or do you not have a partner? Are you doing this all on your own and do you expect them all to be? No, none of the larger apartment and number of bedrooms. And and so that's that's sort of I just like to know a little bit more about how this changes the end of the relationship with and this particular project with CHT, how this changes, how this may sugar off to use the seasonal term. I I guess that's a variety of questions. I mean, I guess what I would say is that there are still ongoing negotiations. So and I can't really speak to what the unit mix will end up playing out to be the same way CHT could never stipulate as to what their unit mix was going to be. So there there was a lot of ambiguity. What I would say is that the reason why we have you know moved forward in the direction we are is because we want to be front loading these units we want to earlier in the process. And that was one of the challenges that we were having a hard time on CHT. And I don't think that they would say anything differently on that. OK, it was it was a timing thing as much as anything and an inability for them to commit in a reasonable period of time. And I thought we had productive conversations. And again, it was it kind of came down to, you know, we needed to move forward. We needed some level of certainty. And so that's really kind of where where a thing can sugar it out. Use the seasonal term. What I would suggest in terms of the unit mix is that, you know, we we're going to have to adhere to the ordinance, whether they have, you know, a number of three bedrooms that would then dictate that there's less units brought online because of the way the ordinance is written. I I can't stipulate that right now. To say that we have to adhere to the ordinance and we fully intend to and that the the partner that we're working with right now in negotiations with his reputable developer, the local developer and, you know, they have a longstanding positive reputation, I would say, in this community of delivering high quality units and managing them well. I wasn't and well, and the other thing is I might say that explanation is is helpful about the situation with the HG because my conversation was with a board member. And and so it wasn't firsthand with a staffer. But you can't say whether or not perhaps you can't. This would be a non-profit developer that would have all those strings attached that that CHT would have. Or I was just thinking if it weren't. They are using, I believe, similar or the exact same funding sources that CHT would be using. Oh, OK. OK. Those I think, you know, while I can't say that with 100 percent certainty, I'm very confident that that would be the case. They may have other other levels of other sources of equity that go into it, but they have similar strings attached. And they're you're the same. I'm sorry. You're expecting to do the and the building with the inclusionaries early is what you're saying. We'd like to. We'd like to be bringing those online as soon as possible. Uh huh. Well, that's really that's really good news. That's really good news. Yeah. And I think I think that, again, plays into part of this decision making, which is, you know, a queue that's two, three years down the road. And our perspective is not as beneficial to both the community and to us. Well, it's all servingly as having something come online sooner that's adhering to the ordinance. And we were very clear in that that discussion with CHT. And again, we it was not to say to CHT, we don't want to work with you. And in fact, what we said is we're happy to continue to have discussions about other lots on site. So there was no like, hey, this relationship has ended. It was just no, no, no, I was I didn't mean to imply that. So as I heard you say, or wasn't Andrew one way or the other, you will meet the requirements of the average. Yes, 100 percent. And we are comfortable being held accountable to that. So if we if for whatever reason, we ended up on the marker rate building larger bedroom units and the affordable units have been delivered front loaded and they had a lower bedroom count. We would have to make up for that down the road on the marker units. OK, I'm I'm I cannot speak for the committee, but I'm satisfied and I would recommend to the committee that that they support your plan. Thank you, Sandy. Thank you, Sandy. Are there any other members of the public who would like to make comments? Any board members? We just had a comment on site plan review parking in page seven of seven and the staff comment. Um, I wonder if the applicant can talk a little bit more. I know that the minimum spaces is four sixty five and we're up to six twenty five by granted, some of those are on street spaces. But I'm wondering or as the board talked about this before, I don't know, I'm just somebody who deals with stormwater management and regional water quality issues and stuff like that. And I realize you'll you'll meet this the specs that Tom DiPetro and Dave Wheeler have set. But I don't know, I'm just it seems like a lot of that sauce. I just wanted to educate me on how we came up with that number in the end. We did we did talk quite a bit about the parking during that case process. I honestly haven't reviewed the numbers in in a little while. Um, I think that what is there appears to be correct. You know, we basically figure about one and a half parking spaces per apartment. That's a pretty common metric used across the board. We proposed about four hundred apartments and we have about six hundred parking spaces. So I think that that's generally in line with sort of industry standards. So, you know, I guess three hundred and twenty of those are underground. And so the service parking is actually fairly limited in that sense. Yeah, and I want to have a sense of like. And I know the sort of with the standard, I'm just sort of like I'm curious about, you know, especially with the apartment newer apartment buildings on Shelburne Road, which I'm pretty familiar with, because that's where I live off of Shelburne Road. And and I just want to see from a more not so much from what is permitted or what's actually built, but what do you see in terms of the actual use? So we and this would be a question for staff to we see a development. Permitted at roughly one and a half. Cars per unit, let's call it. What do we see when actually people move in? Is it more or less than that? Are we seeing that that parking is right about right? Or are we seeing less cars actually using? What is that? What is the use data actually showing? Well, the cities a couple of years ago got out of the parking game. You know, there's a lot of news and that decision was made because. Nobody knows their parking needs better than developers. And so what is used? I believe it's highly dependent on the setting. And if this neighborhood is built out in a way that it has great connectivity and there are some, you know, grocery stores and there's some industrial employers and maybe there will be significantly less car usage. And as this development builds out, they may find that they are over parked in certain areas and under parked in other areas and then, you know, adjust accordingly. But I think that we don't really have an expectation because each neighborhood kind of drives with the demand is rather than the use of our non answer. And that helps. And again, I'm just trying to get caught up on things. I appreciate the explanation and having a lot of it as underground. And yeah, it is it is a little bit different. It's a changing neighborhood, as opposed to one like Shepard Road, which is changing, but also has a lot of preexisting development of Woodluston Road, et cetera. So yeah, we, you know, we continue to look at parking and we continue to talk with building operators about those requirements. And we're continuing to sort of refine those plans. So I don't I don't think that these are necessarily final proposals. And, you know, we certainly are looking to and you guys are reviewing the the next phase of this project, which is essentially connected and shares some of that parking that is being built currently. I know that that was a topic of conversation at the preliminary plan at any rate. And so, you know, I think there is an intent to sort of have, you know, an interconnectedness to things. But but we do, you know, we at this point, our best information is that the space metric is correct. And we have left the on-street spaces out of that calculation because they wouldn't be available in winter during, you know, snow storms and things, which is so I think at that point, the off-street spaces are 583, which is actually a little bit less than the or close to the one and a half per unit metric. OK, thank you. So I think that's it for staff comments. Am I correct, Delilah? Yes. OK. So for having lost his Internet, so I guess you just stuck with me. No problem. So it sounds to me, Marla, like we can take a vote on closing the preliminary plat. Please remember to entertain public comment. And then I would agree. Well, I guess you're right. Sandy, Sandy commented and no one else wanted to. OK, great. Sorry, I got distracted this week. No, that's OK. Back notes. Who would like to move that we close this hearing? I'll make a motion that we close SD 2013. Thank you, Mark. Do I hear a second? Second. Thanks, Dan. All in favor of closing SD 2113, say aye. Twenty thirteen. Isn't it twenty one? Twenty one. Wait a minute. I was reading the top of the thing. It says twenty twenty thirteen. Sorry. Tablets, sorry. So twenty one twenty one thirteen. OK, good. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. Any opposed? OK, so the motion is carried and we will see you at the next step, if not before, Evan and Andrew. Yes, we appreciate it. We hope to be in with the final plat soon. OK, good. Thank you. Good night. Trying to keep you guys busy. Yeah, yeah. Thanks for your time and for staying. Pat, it's so late to get us through. Appreciate it. Thank you. OK, board. It's late. Let's look at the minutes of April 6th and April 20th, twenty twenty one. Has everyone had a chance to look at them? Only the April 6th minutes were available by the time the packet was published. Oh, I busted them. I thought I read. OK. So April 6th, all in favor of approving the minutes from April 6th, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? No. So the minutes are approved. So any other back on the line? Just just for the record, Stephanie, back on. Oh, Stephanie. Yeah, other business. Any other business? Just just a short comment. I just like to thank Marla for staff comments. It's this ridiculously complex project. And she helps to organize everything very, very well. So I'm going to give my compliments to her. Thank you, Dan. I am always blown away by Marla's work and it's a lot of work, a lot of analysis. And we are very lucky to have you, Marla. Well, thank you. It is my full time job. I don't fit it in on this. No, I know, but still a lot. OK. Any other business? All right. I think we're adjourned. Good night, everybody. This conference is no longer being recorded. Night, everybody.