 I think he's involved in restoration after the storms and stuff. I don't know quite what he's doing, but he's been there for months. He's been there a long, long time. Well, they could have sent him to Puerto Rico, but he would have solved that one too. But they need somebody down there to retell it. The car's out there. I get scared when I come and see a full parking right now. We're going to get screamed at. Normally that means they're out there screaming. I don't think he's going to bed, but he can slide his name down. He'll try and hide here. He seems to be human. I mean, dogs are better behaved than that. What's this new thing for? That is a, our first applicant is going to be via phone. So that's a little speaker thing so that she can hear the members. Thanks. I haven't had my computer for a couple of minutes. I don't know if Marla forwarded it to you, but I said, I need to know if Matt's coming because I don't know how I got the third seat, but I need to know if I need to figure out my excuse for tonight. I will definitely, if Matt's not coming, I will definitely be. 18th, 2018. First item on the agenda, the directions of emergency evacuation procedures from the conference room. There are two exits in this building, two in the front, two in the back. And if we are to have to exit the building, we'll be in the south parking lot, which is behind us here. Item number two, any additions, deletions or changes in the order of agenda items? Moving on to number three, comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. If you have anything outside of the agenda you'd like to talk about. Now is your opportunity. I also encourage you to sign in on the, the sign in form that should be in the back. Let us know who you are. Thank you very much. Now is the opportunity for any announcements? Is there any announcements from the board? Okay. Moving on to item number five, design review application, DR 1806 of Mitchell Swartz to revise a master signage permit to allow wall mounted signs at 372 Dorset Street. And the applicant is, we're calling by phone. Should we hear a delta? We get this one, right? Hit it harder. Who is it? Laura Putnam. Hello. Is this Laura Putnam? Yes, this is. Hi, Laura. This is Matt Koda with the development review board. And we're in the open meeting right now. And so we'd like to start with your agenda item. That's okay. This is a quasi judicial panel and I ask you to raise your right hand and swear to tell the whole truth under penalty of injury. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So we have two buildings on Dorset Street and we're moving to 372 Dorset Street. So we're in one building. We just want to take the two times we already have that are pre-standing and we want to mount them on 372 in place of the existing radio station signs they have. Okay. Did you get a chance to read the findings of fact and the draft decision? Yes, I did. Do you have any questions about that? No. Board have any comments or questions about the anything anyone from the public would like to comment on this agenda item? And I would entertain a motion to close. I move that we close. Master signage plan and DR 1806 of Mitchell Schwartz. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Thank you, Laura, very much. Thank you. You're all set. Now everyone will be calling in. Why bother to come here? Moving on to item number six sketch plan application SD 1814 of Ernest and our Claire family trust to subdivide an existing parcel developed with a single family dwelling into two lots of 15 acres lot number one and 117 acres lot number two. That's 1731 Hinesburg road. Who is here for the applicant? Hi, Jennifer, if you could raise your right hand, sort of tell the whole truth under penalty of perjury. Thank you very much. Any disclosures to on the board? No, we've done business together, but nothing related to this. Thank you very much. Can you walk us through the sketch plan? Currently the entire parcel is approximately 132 acres and the family desires to subdivide up 150 per parcel from that large piece. So the remaining piece would be around 117 acres. So there's no new development proposed as part of this application just only the creation of a lot. And a lot would have an existing farmhouse and one of the barns on the property. Jennifer, have you read the staff comments? Yes, I have. Want to go over that with us? Yes. Sure. Page three, item number one. Talking about that the applicant has not performed a full boundary survey. Yes, sometimes we'll just survey the portion of things that have been divided off. Knowing that the remaining parcel is large enough to be all of the requirements and nobody's really questioning boundary lines. So we have surveyed the 15 acre parcel and we would propose that, you know, is what we do for this piece. It seems like a lot of extra work to survey the remaining 170 acres that no one's proposing to do anything with. The board, any comments about that? Just a quick question. Can you give me just a rough ballpark of what it would cost to do the survey on 117 acres? I'm getting in trouble with my survey for giving out this number without getting an estimate. Number of zeros in the... You know, I would guess it would be roughly in the, you know, $10,000 range. You know, 100 acres is really a lot of land for the surveyors to traverse around. I think we had your people do a $10,000 one for only about seven acres. I was low with my estimate. It's proportional to that. No, I feel kind of... The point of my question was to say that I don't think it's worth having them spend that money to do something that would have such a little impact. So I'm fine with waiving the requirement. Staff's good with that, too. Yeah, as am I. Anyone, any other comments? I don't. Anyone here from the public that would like to comment on this project? This is sketch, so thank you very much. All right, we'll be back in soon. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, moving on. Item number seven, preliminary and final plot application, SD 1813 of Snyder-Braverman Development Company, LLC, to subdivide 5.53 acre parcel into five lots, ranging in size from 0.57 acres to 2.1 acres, and to adjust the boundary line between the previously conveyed settlement to the city of South Burlington, and a six 4.2 acre lot for the purpose of conformance with official map 310 Market Street. Who is here for the applicant? We'll continue this item until later in the meeting if the applicant does not arrive, and we'll move on to item number eight, conditional use application, CU 1807 and site plan application, SP 1815 of Toronto Fuels, to amend the previously approved site plan for an auto repair facility. The amendment consists of constructing an application to the existing building, adding a paved parking lot, and changing the use to a contractor or building trade facility. A portion of the proposed road work is located within a stream buffer requiring conditional use review, and 10 line rock road. Who is here for the applicant? I don't think she just expected that it would be up at, you know, five after seven or more times. So I can try to fill in until she comes up. There's no other items on the agenda. Well, we do have to approve the minutes, but I don't want to have that. Well, I haven't reviewed the staff promise that I didn't. You want to give a shout? Sure, you can do it. All right. Wing it, Jen. Okay. Can you please state your date for the record again? Jen does it tell with Trudeau Consulting Engineers. Okay, could you raise your right hand and square it so that you can have a partner? I do. Thank you very much. No? No. Sorry. We skipped you, Ken. No. Would you like to? Yeah, that might be good. That would be great. Sorry. Sorry. I'm sorry. We're going, yeah, the vice chair runs the tight ship here. Great. So for those watching at home, we're skipping back to agenda number seven, preliminary and final application, SD1813 of Snyder Braverman Development Company, LLC. Sorry, I'm late. It's okay. Can you see off the alphabet? Can you see anything? Ken Braverman. Snyder Braverman. Thank you, Ken. Ken, can you raise your right hand and square it up all the truth that depends on your project? I do. Thank you very much. I'll give you a few minutes to unpack. Great. Thank you. So quick overview on our presentation tonight. It's a 5.53 acre subdivision of a property in the form-based code district. And we're proposing to create five lots on this parcel that's just over five acres. And if you have it in front of you, that's C, D and F as outlined above are planned for development. Lot E is planned for a gravel wetland for stormwater management. It includes a preexisting city easement. And Lot G will be a future common lot, which is predominantly wetlands. And Lot E is permitted under both an A&R stormwater permit and as part of our Army Corps wetland permit along with Lot G. We currently have an application into the planning department under the form-based code for Lot C, which will be a 60-unit apartment project. As part of this final application, we've been working with city staff on this will be the first section of Garden Street. And if you recall, the city recently approved a revised design for Garden Street, which will be a 64-foot right-of-way. And our most latest plans reflect the 64-foot right-of-way. And in terms of the form-based code review, a majority of this property falls within the T-4, Transit 4 zoning designation with a small portion of Lot G falling in T-3. Phasing of Garden Street is something that we've spent quite a bit of time with Paul and Marla on. They proposed some language that we went back and forth on and we're perfectly comfortable with the language that Marla drafted in her document. Our initial plans are to construct the full roadway from Market Street to the driveway where you see an easement coming through between Lot C and D, along with a six-foot sidewalk and a 10-foot bike path. As we move forward with the development of Lot B and D, we have an agreement with the planning staff that there'll be language in each of our form-based code applications that'll essentially make the occupancy of those buildings or future projects subject to the completion of sidewalks and other improvements. We also have an agreement with the city that if the city were to move forward with the connection of Garden Street and Midas Drive, that we would complete the full road as well. Other than that, I think that's pretty much it on our side in terms of, you know, we're thinking that this is pretty straightforward and we're looking forward to getting moving on Lot C, and we're certainly happy to answer any questions. Did you read the staff comments again? I have. Any comments to the comments? No. They all look perfectly fine and I've had lots of conversations with Marla and she's doing a great job. Well, I apologize. I've been out of town for five days and didn't get a chance to read this and read this. Why is there a boundary adjustment happening between Lot C and C for Garden Street? Is that just in order to line up Garden Street correctly? Yeah, I think that's exactly it. There was a previous road alignment. There was a previous easement that was granted many years ago for that and this alignment, this modification is now accurately aligned with the current Market Street plants. Okay. Can the comment to reflect the 64 foot for the proposed right away? That's... No problem. Okay. Yep. It looks like it is 64 feet in here. The shared easement access, is there a reason it goes all the way through to Lot E? Or does it matter? I mean, it doesn't matter to me, but nobody's going to be accessing onto E, right? This is the... Correct. 46, 45 foot? 45 foot wide shared easement. Yeah, and honestly, I'm not sure I fully understand the history of that. I mean, frankly, it just makes it more flexible, so I have a problem with it. I just wanted to know whether there was a reason why it goes all the way through to E. I mean, I think in reality, the improvements that are going to be made on Lot E are going to be not your typical stormwater pond. Right. So it's going to be a gravel wetland. So it'll be a little more user-friendly, should we say. It's not going to necessarily... The city may need access to it, so that's probably why it goes all the way. Yep. Yeah, got it. Of course they'd have access off Market Street, but whatever. That's fine. I'm curious. And Lot G is the only one that is in a separate zone, and that's again... Yeah, Lot G is predominantly wetland. Exactly. Any other board comments? Any comments from the public regarding this application? Entertain a motion to close. If I can get back to the beginning. I move that we close SD 1813 preliminary file Platt of 310 Market Street. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. I suppose. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to back to agenda item 8, traditional use applications, CU 1807 and site plan application, SP 1815 of Toronto Fuels. Who's here for the applicant? Hi there. I'm Abby Derry. I'm here from Trudel Consulting Engineers. And Peter Trono may roll in in 10 minutes. But I hope he comes. In any case. Abby, could you raise your right hand? I swear to tell the truth under penalty perjury. Yes. Disclosures. I would like to disclose that in my professional life. I am familiar with the Toronto Fuels and Peter and Corey and Luke as they are members of the nonprofit trade association that I run. But I don't view that as a, although if the applicant remembers view that as a conflict that would step aside. But if that happened, we would not have a quorum. Or any of the public. Sorry. That's a problem. I just wanted to disclose that. So thank you very much. Abby, tell us a little about the project. Okay. Excuse me. So Peter Trono is looking to expand his existing building that he has at Tenline Rock Road by 1600 square feet for storage of his, a couple of his fuel trucks. There's going to be three overhead doors on the west side of the building. And again, it's really just to house the trucks. He's going to be adding a couple of paved parking, he's going to pave the parking lot at a couple of more spaces to accommodate his, this is where he's going to have his, the offices for his Trono fuels business. He wants to move here from where he's located right now in Burlington. So he's proposing to pave the parking lot and add a couple of spaces for employees. Landscaping, fenced dumpster pad, stormwater treatment and a couple of wallpacks on the expansion part of the building. The building is going to be, the expansion portion is going to be stepped down about three feet from existing finished floor elevation to accommodate the, to work better with the site grade. It slopes from east to west down toward the floodway, floodplain and stream. That's on the west side of the building. So that is a brief description and we provided a landscaping plan, plant list, lighting plan, specifications that are all in the package that you've received. Have you read the staff comments? I have. Should we go through the points in red? Yeah. Okay. Number one, about naturalized mix of grasses. And the applicant is fine with that. We can update our plans to have a seed mix for any disturbed areas within the buffer. And we can, there can be a no mo, a no mo condition within the stream buffer too. The applicant doesn't have need to use that area for anything. Number two, we're talking about snow storage. Yeah. If you pull up a plan, we have one snow storage area on the east side of the building in front, but we wanted to provide a space on the west side of the building as well. And I'm sorry I don't have a laser pointer, but in the southwest corner of the parking lot right now, there's a little snow storage bubble kind of by the curve on the southwest side where the hand is. And half of that falls within the 50 foot top of bank buffer. So I guess I would just probably move that closer to the east between the existing tree. There's kind of a triangle formed between the southern property line, the parking lot, and that tree right where the hand is. So I think that is area sufficient for snow storage. And then the other place they can do is the parking lot is so big because he needs room for trucks to circulate and get in and out of the building in the back. But there's going to be areas on the site that will be evident in the winter where trucks don't go. So he can pile snow in those areas. Those are my suggestions to address number two. Item number three. We have yes, we've corresponded with Dave and we will increase the four bay depth to feet. We removed one of the plant species from the acceptable gravel wetland planting list because it wouldn't is not suitable for continuous inundation of water. But all the rest of the species that we have on our list on our detail are fine so that will satisfy that requirement. And then you can put a condition in requiring the applicant to maintain the stormwater facilities. Item number four we'll talk about the value of the trees that have been removed. And so I have a handout here that the landscape architect just prepared today. You want to take a look? So one of the trees that's being removed in the front yard is now a dead tree and we wouldn't be removed if it wasn't dying. So we're just replacing it in kind with whatever tree it is now which is a maple. The other tree that's being removed is a lilac and the value placed on that was $375 and then the other tree slated to removal is actually a big clump of trees that just never got mowed. I mean it's not really anything valuable and the landscape architect has indicated that if those continue to grow given their cluster and their proximity they'll probably break off and be more of a hazard anyway. So he assigned no value to that. Subtracting the trees that he assigned value to from the landscaping total we still have a number higher than the landscape budget required by the LDRs and he achieved that by adding three more lilacs to the existing landscaping plan that we have already submitted. So you don't have that landscaping plan but we'll add those in when we submit the final plans. What are the calipers of the current trees that are going to be removed? The current trees, what are the calipers of all the trees that are being removed? The maple is 16 inch I don't have a caliper on the clump of trees it's a big cluster of many saplings that have grown together so it's and I don't have a photograph with me but it's a it's hard to say what the caliper is there's probably 10 or 12 2 inch caliper 2 to 4 inch caliper shoots coming out of that cluster and then the lilac again I don't have a caliper but the landscape architect thought it was about $375 for the value. Well I don't like the way that the South Burlington does this but you have to replace trees caliper for caliper I don't care what he says because I've been through this enough times and paid the money to do it you can't just say it's worth and get away with that if you have a 16 inch tree and you need 16 inches of caliper to replace it unless Ray disagrees with me on this maybe if it's dead you get away with it uh no no so a 16 inch tree that's dead has to be replaced with 16 inches of tree and that is either you pick 8 2 inch trees it can be 4 4 inch trees but you have a lot of trees to be replacing right and I mean I guess I understand that requirement if the tree is living and we were removing it for the purpose of this development but because because it's a tree that is dying and they may have replaced it anyway not as part of the project they wouldn't have replaced it with 8 2 inch caliper trees it would have been a 1 for 1 swap but that's the I've been through this a bunch I totally disagree with how South Browlington does this but this is the way South Browlington does it so I'm telling you I know and I just want to be clear that if a tree dies on somebody's property a tree has been growing for 25 years and it's a 16 inch tree and it dies if it's in your backyard of your house and you're not part of a development regulations require that landscaping on the property be maintained so if a 25 year old tree dies gets hit by lightning whatever you need to replace it on a caliper by caliper basis under our landscaping section to not diminish the amount of landscaping on the property that's the way it's been done for the last number of years and John is correct he's had to go through it himself on other properties so without that information available we may need to have this continue to a future meeting have the information about the caliper of the trees that are being removed so we know what the basis is and then a plan showing the replacement of that number of caliper elsewhere doesn't have to be in that particular location it could be someplace else on the property the applicant is not trying to get away with anything here they would fully comply with the requirements as they are and is it something that the board could condition that we measure the caliper and if the administrative officer can agree that we've met the zoning regulations that the board would be okay with that is that something you need to see typically it has to be in the plan right it has to be the we lost a court case on this very issue with landscaping where the board required the landscaping plan to be approved by the planner the court says the planner has no authority to do that only the board can approve the plan so ever since then we've been requiring that the plans that the board approves that the board actually sees the plan plus we also need to have our city arborist review any changes to a landscaping plan of course and we're happy to have the arborist review that I just was trying to not come back in front of the board for this issue I totally get it and if you want to come with me to argue with this somewhere else I'll be with you but this is the way the rule is number five staff recommends that yes we will update our pavement detail for the trench repaving to match the amount identified as the recommendation great and number six and then the applicant will also update the construction details on our erosion control measures to specify the four inches of topsoil required in disturbed areas and update the sequencing on the erosion control notes any other comments on the board about this project I think it looks good any other comments from the public is there a motion to continue this for is that the next day June 5th motion to continue to June 5th how soon would Abbey have to have our information in for a June 5th I think there are three Tuesdays there are three Tuesdays in May so you've got an extra week yeah so it's like a week from Friday at the end of the day on the 25th we have a week off the plans will be available on the 28th which is the week that we prepare the staff comments for the June 5th meeting that is plenty of time you'll have them I move that we continue side plan application SP 1816 and conditional use application CU 1807 to June 5th second all those in favor say aye aye it was posed last item on the agenda is the second last item on the agenda is minutes we have the minutes from May 1st did the board get a chance to review those minutes are there any comments on May 1st I move we approve all in favor say aye aye I'll post and item number 10 any other business and the development review board meeting is adjourned 732 go Celtics Ray on the Toronto one