 to the South Drowington Development Review Board meeting for December 15th, 2020. My name is Matt Kodum, the Chair of the Development Review Board. And with us is Alyssa Portman, Don Filleberg, Jim Langen, John Wilking, Mark Baer, Brian Sullivan. Also an attendance tonight from the city of South Drowington is Marlekeen, our Development Review Planner and Delilah Hall, our Zoning Administrator. The first item on the agenda, are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items from staff or the fellow board members? Okay, hearing none, seeing none. We go to agenda item number two, which is announcements, as I do before every go-to meeting, hearing. I wanna thank those in attendance, those on the phone, those watching online. Anyone who wishes to participate in this hearing tonight should sign the virtual sign-in sheet. There's a couple ways you can do that. If you're on a tablet or phone or a computer, a smartphone, you can sign your name into the chat box function, which is the little squiggly circle in the top right-hand corner. If you can't locate the chat box or you're on your phone and you want to sign in, please do send an email to Marlekeen at mkeen, e, n, e, s, burl.com and provide your contact information. I also ask that if you're not speaking to mute your phone or mute your computer so we don't hear any background information, phone calls, dodges, yelping, tea brewing or all those sorts of things that happens as we do these virtual meetings. I can't ask Marle or Delilah to mute all so I can silence everyone and then you can unmute yourself in order to participate again. That's just to make sure that everyone can participate in these hearings in the most effective manner possible without the distractions of ambient noise. So you should sign in by either signing in the chat box or by sending an email to Marle so we know that you're here and it's necessary in order to be considered a participant should you want to obtain party status in order to appeal the decision made by this board. Similar to when we meet in person, the public will have an opportunity to comment both on the agenda items and non-agenda items and you can also submit comments in writing if you send them to Marle, mkeen, e, s, burl.com we will absolutely all get it also out of us. Okay, so next, are there any other comments, excuse me, are there any announcements from the board or from staff? Hearing none and seeing none in the chat box, I will go to agenda number three which is comments and questions from the public not related to any of the agenda items tonight. If you do have a comment or question not related to the agenda, please say your name or enter your name in the chat box and I'll give everyone a chance to do that. I'll pause and I see people signing in the virtual sign-in sheet, that's great. Good to see everybody. I don't see anyone that wants to talk to a public comment and I don't hear anyone at this point that wishes to have a comment or question on related agenda so we will move right to agenda item number four which is continued and preliminary, continued preliminary final application SD 2037 of 99 Swiss Street Associates LLC to create a plan unit development of two lots at 99 Swiss Street and 105 Swiss Street and a constructed three-story 6800 square foot 20-unit mixed-rate residential building and associated side improvements on the lots at 105 Swiss Street and 105 Swiss Swiss Street. Who is here for the applicant? Dave Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates. Hi, Dave, how are you? Good, thank you. Anyone else with you there? Steve Kerrio with 99 Swiss Street. Hi, Steve, anyone else? I haven't a lot of trouble logging, clicking on that link, it's not working. So have us. Oh, is this the, do you mean the link on the agenda? Yes. It didn't work. Yeah. Sure. If you type it in. Yeah, Don, great suggestion. If you do type it in, sometimes it seems that the links aren't clickable and I don't know how that, when they put it on the website, it loses its hyperlink or what, but. That's the exact problem. Yeah, well, I'll pause for a second and take a sip of my seltzer and hopefully everyone will jump in. But maybe if you do get an email, maybe we'll also give Marla a chance to check their email, make sure no one is struggling to get connected. Okay, so as we last left SD 2037, we had a couple of outstanding issues, one related to stormwater and the other related to access. There is an update in the packet which talks about some of the stormwater issues and some of the options or choices we're going to discuss tonight regarding access to the property. Just want to say on the outset that this is what we do at the development review board. This is, I think everyone is happy. I hope everyone's happy that we're having new affordable housing in the city of South Burlington. And this is here to work out the fine details to make sure that when it is built, it's safe, that it, the access is safe, that we make sure we take care of all the details like stormwater, parking and all of that. So anyways, with that context, Dave, if you want to start with what we have new since we last spoke. So in regards to the last time we left, the primary question was whether or not a fire track could enter the property only from the proposed entrance as opposed to continuing to use the existing entrance off a feral park drive. So I think that's a good point. So the plan that Delilah has put up on screen is the existing condition plan. And north is straight up. Swiss street runs east-west along the upper portion of the plan. And in the left-hand side is feral park drive. That is an intersection fairly close to the Swiss street and feral street intersection, signalized intersection. And this particular project shares that particular drive with feral park itself. So the entrance to 99 Swiss street, which is the private, the office building that's shown on this particular plan is just to the north of the red dot. And people, this particular design or this particular curb cut location was actually requested by the city back in 1989. The applicant had originally proposed to have one come off of Swiss street, but the city requested or required that it come in off a feral park drive. So out of all that, this particular circulation plan was developed to provide people the ability to basically access all of the parking spaces in a circular manner and be able to come back out to the property and now into Swiss street. This particular plan unit development proposes to redevelop the single family home east side of the office parcel. That is that parcel, the new parcel is called 105 Swiss street with a 20 unit multifamily building. And this particular application actually seeks to institute a new curb cut out onto Swiss street. Staff has agreed that this is a good idea. The traffic study identified that this is a good idea primarily to minimize the queuing conflicts between the traffic that queues up on Swiss street heading in the west to lead direction towards the signal and people trying to leave the 99 Swiss street as well as the 105 Swiss street property. So in this particular case, we identified this early on planning from project before we came to the city offered this particular curb cut and as a byproduct of the sketch plan discussions have proposed and consistent with the traffic study also that the existing curb cut out onto Ferrell Park Drive that's on the western side of this particular plan be made only one way in. And the reason for that is because there's been no identified issues as far as traffic safety at that particular intersection. No identified traffic accidents associated with turning movements out of this particular curb cut. And but we recognize that the city's growth of Ferrell Park has created challenges with regard to pedestrian bicycle access. There's currently a marked out bike lane on the west side of Ferrell Park Drive that isn't shown on this particular plan but it is shown on some of the updates. And in this particular case, what we're proposing to do is remove well over 50 actually 65% of the traffic that utilizes that particular roadway by making it only by one way and only and having everybody else come out to the new curb cut primarily in the traffic study you'd identify that the further you get away from the signalized intersection that you are. So early on before during the planning process, we met with the fire marshal and the fire marshal said, absolutely, I would like to keep that curb cut out on Park Road, excuse me, Ferrell Park Drive in place. And out of all that, we subsequently started communicating with staff, planning and zoning staff where they wanted us to eliminate that curb cut altogether. Our concern with that particular option is that it makes that particular parking tray and the north side of the existing office building basically challenging as far as access. Typically, we like to only design these dead end parking trays for about six vehicles or so because you can't see any further back than that. So our concern is that A, by eliminating that curb cut off of Ferrell Drive, you've disrupted the circulation pattern that was originally designed for the office building. Two, you basically have made that particular parking lot portion of the parking lot less efficient because A, people might not be able to see a space at the far end. Or if the parking lot's full, you now have people trying to back out of there because there's no parking spaces. So we really feel that it's over the top trying to eliminate this particular curb cut. We feel that what we've done is an innovative way of basically managing the traffic and still retaining the original design that was actually promulgated or required by the city. And our frustration is that the total elimination of that curb cut would put this particular property at a disadvantage as far as the efficiency of the use of that particular parking area and the circulation pattern. We have a lot of people, we have medical office use in the building that brings people of greater age and lesser eyesight capabilities. And I won't get into some of the stories we've heard but the last thing we wanna do is make that even more difficult for them. So we feel it's just poor planning to totally eliminate that particular curb cut. So David, could I just take a pause? This is significant. This is what we have to go into deliberations considering and I'm gonna try to summarize what I know and staff or you or the applicants can craft me. We essentially have two choices. We have amongst the range of choices are to have the access to both properties be Swift Street and to close off the access on Ferrell to keep both open. As is keep the Ferrell Street curb cut as is or to neck down or provide some other mitigating traffic apparatus so that fire trucks can enter that cars can enter but that we don't have cars exiting through the Ferrell Drive. Do I have that summarized correctly? Very good job. Thank you. Okay, just wanna know what we have to think about as we collect all the information we can before we close. Okay, so what are the options that don't include closing it down or keeping it open as is but that allow fire trucks access? Because if you do close it down it does seem to be that you're gonna have to lose minimum of two spaces in order to make the fire trucks get in and out through the Swift Street curb cut. That's the only one left. So we probably understand you don't wanna lose two parking spaces but what I wanna figure out is what's the solution or what's the proposal for using that as a limited access off Ferrell Drive. So Delilah, why don't we slide down a couple of pages here? Everybody's seen that particular one. That second one shows the conflict. This third one shows some improvements to the turning movements into 105 Swift Street. I'm sorry, we can just cut to the chase if you'd like in regards to the simplicity of time. This is what the applicant basically liked to do. Right now we've already proposed do not enter signs for those people moving westerly that would otherwise try to get out to Swift Street through Ferrell Park Drive and or the pavement markings for that matter but in this particular case what we're looking to do is to neck down the existing curb cut with the use of a mountable curb. This would still allow for emergency vehicles to access over that mountable curb moving from West to East into the site but at the same time would create a physical obstruction for passenger vehicles that otherwise might think twice about ignoring both the signs and the pavement markings and working in our way out towards Swift Street. So we're looking to basically augment the necking down of this particular area so it's truly one way access in on the same pavement surface. We also noted that there is some even marking challenges out on Ferrell Park Drive. Specifically on this particular plan, we show the like that but we also feel that there should be a centerline to basically better donate for all parties coming in and out of the park as well as this particular use where their vehicles should be because we see them all over the place. So we would be offering it's not on any of the plans right now but to offer to work with Public Works on putting a centerline in here just to allow all people to understand where they should be as they move in and out of this particular driveway and at the same time find a way to eliminate the egress movements out of this particular problem that otherwise had been identified in the traffic study as long as being a challenge because of the queuing and getting out onto Swift Street during those peak periods in both AM and the field. And David, can you or someone else the strong sentiment I'm getting is that you wanna keep the curb cut at some extent even if it's limited and it's to preserve the parking spaces must be number one or number two on your list and the other is so that the users of that office building can access it the way they're accustomed to now. Is there another reason that I'm missing? Oh, I think that boils it down. Yes. And then we certainly heard from Holly Reese and we've read the comments from our planning staff on some of the advantages of closing that curb cut. Is there anything else that the board would like to hear about this specific proposal but what you like or don't like, what you prefer before we... Could I offer just anecdotally after we've been here 30 years and we've got a medical tenant, the Retina Center on the second floor and they have a lot of elderly patients and I would concern that if we completely block that off, somebody making a move to try to exit here and having to back out all the way with their limited driving skills. We see it every day where you just gotta be patient sometimes they come out of whatever procedure they had and they back slowly out of their space and you just gotta be patient where they're just... To me there's a little bit of a safety concern with that and also them crossing the parking lot with other people backing out with a blind spot and whatnot. I think we're leaving it one way in which is the movement these patients are used to. They'll see whether there's parking available. They'll see where they need to exit. They'll not see that it's one way in and hopefully that would mitigate any congestion, confusion. It just seems like a lot of space to have to back out for people that pull in there to see that as full and I see it every day. I'm looking at it right on my window right now. I can just see some congestion there that's gonna be troublesome. If it's closed off. Can you explain what you're saying about backing out? Well, if it's closed off completely and somebody pulls down into that bank of parking to try to find a spot and they discover it's time to get to the end. I got you, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to make you believe that. You're saying if it was closed then the backing out of your car. Which is something Dave's been warning us about from the beginning with just a normal driver and so I think that's gonna be problematic either way. But I just wanted to point out we do have the Retina Center there and that particular clientele, it just makes me a little nervous, I guess. Okay, thank you for that. Matt, I just wanted to point out one other thing. If we do close that off, there'll be some, especially as Dan was referring to the people at the Retina Center, a lot of those appointments are far between like every six months or once a year or something. So I know that only because my mother's been to see them a number of times at that kind of interval. And although she doesn't drive there, we drive her there, but if someone comes in and this thing gets closed off in July, but they were last there in April and they're coming in October, they're gonna pull down Feral Street. That's the way they're gonna go. And then they can get there and go, oh, I can't go in there. They're gonna go in Feral Park, turn around, come back out, which is what we really don't want them to do. They get to Swift Street to then go up and turn on Swift Street to come back in the main entrance. So I think there's even a transition period, if that were to be closed, it would be very confusing for a long period of time for a lot of those patients that go to the Retina Center. That's a long time tenant, even they're a long time. And I don't imagine they're leaving with the kind of investment they've been in that building. They're not going anywhere. So I think that's also a consideration in the short term. It's gonna, it would cause a lot of problems. Okay. Thank you, Bob. Appreciate that. Does the board have any questions for the applicant or staff regarding the different choices of how we have access? Go ahead, Mark. I had one question. Dan, you made a comment that if like, you know, someone pulls in and goes down the parking aisle and finds there's no parking space that they're gonna get confused and back out if it's blocked off. But isn't the flip side of that that they're gonna go out the do not enter sign, you know, out of convenience and then come back, go out and then come back in and find a different parking spot? There's a risk that could happen. If it's closed off entirely, I guess I just, I'm hoping that if it's, if it's ingress only. Right. The predominant traffic patterns come from the west and down Earl Street. Yeah. People will learn if they want to explore parking opportunities in that bank of parking, that they'll make that movement first. Right. You're right. You're right. There's still, I'm sure there will be times where the others will still have that issue. I mean, I'd rather leave it all open entirely. We've been here 30 years and it's, you know, it's, and I was at the meeting 30 years ago when we were asked to put it here and it's, it's work, you know, it's not perfect. There's times where you want to turn left at eight in the morning and you gotta wait 45 seconds. It's not a big deal. But I think it's proven itself if we were coming in with an initial application to build this, I think I'd ask a lot of questions about, about locating it there. But, but we laid in fairness, we laid out the building and our parking all around that entry, which we all agreed on 30 years ago. So it does seem a little unfair. I mean, we're looking at the one way in is somewhat of a compromise to be honest with you. I'm not in disagreement with you on this. And I know at the last meeting, you know, I was heavily advocating that if it's possible to close it off, to make Feral Street, you know, more fun, the Feral Street Park more functional, but, you know, and with any change in circulation, there's gonna be a learning curve period until people get used to it. I'm hoping with the new curve, I mean, so if we didn't propose the new curb cut and we're adding 20 off peak residential trips, it probably would work just fine too. So I look at the new curb cut, which dates numbers show drastically released the stress on that current situation. So, which I don't think is bad to begin with. Right. I mean, I understand the park is getting more and more people using it. And I mean, I know I'll probably use the new entrance, 99% of the time, unless I'm coming from Charlotte Road to come in. Yeah. Okay. For us, my two cents, I appreciate everything. I'm just trying to, I wanted to mention the redness center just so people were aware of it. Sure. Do any other comments or questions for the board, for staff or for the applicant regarding the decision that we'll have to make a deliberations regarding access and curb cuts? Okay. There is a, another issue with regards to stormwater. City stormwater section indicated that they'll, that these improvements made the system is satisfactory, but there's still concerns about where the dewatering will occur without discharging directly into the wetland or butler buffer. In order to facilitate closing the hearing, staff recommends the board include a condition requiring the applicant submit a proposed dewatering plan that respects the proposed limits of a disturbance and it's, and is approved by the city stormwater section prior to issuing of a zoning permit for the project. David, what is your response to that request? That's acceptable. Great. Thank you. Okay. Is there anything else that the, if not, I would open it up for public comment. Is there anyone in the public that would like to comment on SD 2037, 105 Swift Street, the preliminary and final plot application? If so, you can do it two ways. One is by clicking on that box in the upper right hand corner and writing in that chat box and writing your comment or just simply saying, hey, Matt, I'd like to make a comment or you can just simply say your name and I'll call on you. Okay. Listening. Didn't hear anyone looking at the chat box, not hearing any public comment. So I would ask staff or board or the applicant, if they have any other questions or concerns that you want to bring up before I make a motion to close. I'm good Matt. Here. Okay. Hearing none. I move that we close SD 2037 of 105 Swift Street. Second. I second that. I heard Don. Seconded by Don. Roll call. Alyssa? Aye. Don? Aye. Jim, that chair votes aye. Jim, do we have you now? Yes. Can you hear me? Yep. I'm an aye. Not sure what was going on there. Okay. So this, this preliminary final application is closed. Thank you very much for participating and we'll now move on to attend to item number five agenda item number five is preliminary final plan application SD 2041 of the Snyder group incorporated to amend a previously approved plan for a planned unit development on 25.93 acres consisting of 18 single family dwellings, 10 two family dwellings, three, three unit multifamily dwellings and an existing single family home. The amendment consists of changing the unit mix to 12 single family dwellings, 13 two family dwellings and three three unit multifamily dwellings and an existing single family home and relocate the recreation path from off street to on street at 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street. Who is here for the applicant? I am Chris Snyder. Hey, Chris. And... Anyone else? Andy Rowe with Limerone Dickinson. Hey, Andy. Anyone else? This is Matt Byrne from Cabela Che. Hey, Matt. Hi. Is there any disclosures on the board before I swear in the applicant? So Brian has mentioned in the chat that he's your cues from this item and has signed off the meeting for the time being. Excellent, thank you for that, Marla. So it's just the six of us. Chris, Andy, Matt, if I could have you raise your right hand. We need to have one other person, Liam, right? Oh, I'm sorry, Liam. Right, so Chris, Andy, Matt, Matt and Liam, if I could have you raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. I do. No, all four have nodded or said yes in the affirmative. Okay, so this is preliminary and final plot application. I would, as I do before we start. Yeah, go ahead. This is Dawn. I did this at the last hearing for this project, but I'll disclose again that Liam Murphy and I have been friends for about 30 years. His wife is a very good friend of mine, and, but I don't believe that that poses a conflict of interest unless anyone wants to challenge that. Thank you, Dawn. Thank you for saying that. Okay, we are at preliminary and final before we talk about the project, just generally speaking, preliminary and final plot. What is it? Well, it's within the last six months, the board reviewed a sketch plan, which we did and provided oral guidance to the applicant. This hearing the applicant describes the project and the applicant, the board will step through staff comments thereby considering the proposal of conformance with the applicable land development standards. I will invite public comments and questions and all questions and statements should be directed at the board chair. The board may choose to continue the meeting at a later date. If there are questions that remain to be examined, future date will be announced prior to concluding this item for the evening. At the end of the stage, the board will vote on whether to close the hearing and once closed, we'll issue a decision on the applicant. The decision will be mailed to the applicant and to those who have identified themselves as interested persons, again, either through the chat box or by an email to Marla or a phone call to Marla. If no appeal of the board's decision is made within 30 days, the decision is final and the applicant may proceed with the project. Okay, so for those of you that may remember this project, there was a project on this plot that was approved, but this is a new project based on the old project with some slight changes. We did have a sketch hearing that took place in October and he's frozen, I think. Come back, Matt. Matt, can you give us a thumbs up if you can hear us? I'm seeing in the background on him that he's not connected to audio. So it's not as though he could hear us and just we can't hear him. I just sent him a chat to let him know that we're not getting him. Okay, because if he can hear us and we can't hear him, we could sort of proceed with at least the beginning stuff while he gets connected, but I wanna make sure he can at least hear it. I don't know. Yeah, have you for a second, Matt? I don't know if it's... I think it's his bandwidth or something. Well, it's really windy out there today. I know here in Shelburne, we're affected by the wind pretty severely. Yeah. Do we just go off? He might be disconnecting and then trying to make him... We'll just give it another minute. Everyone. And then if we do end up having to proceed, we do have five participating members and it is up to Dawn to either chair or a point of chair. So if that comes to that, but let's give Matt... Hey, Marla. Hey, Marla. Hey, Matt. So I was informed by my teenage children that my internet is down. They were complaining to me. I wasn't complaining to them, but I'm back on phone. So I'm happy to do it this way. People just won't be able to see my face until someone reboots it. Is that all right? Yeah, I think that's fine, Matt. Thank you. Okay, I apologize for that. So where I last left off, I asked Chris to give a brief overview of the plan as we have it here today. Chris, is that all right? Can you do that? Yes. So this is a modification to... As Matt had described, a modification to a previously approved plan and we really have three items that are being requested from that approved plan. And one is the relocation of the bike path along the eastern border of the property. And then adding a no-cut zone in that same area for some existing tree. And then shifting of carriage home, number one and two on veil drive to the opposite side of the road, creating two more duplexes. So I don't know if Andy, do you wanna speak a little more detail to that? But again, the one thing I do wanna say is thank you to the DRB for taking the time to listen to our requests. And so I'll let Andy get into some technical details and then Liam to talk a little bit about the rationale for the changes. Okay, so I'd be happy to go through some of the finer points of the three major items that Chris described, but it's also presented on the plans and described in the staff report. There are a number of other minor technical items that are raised in the staff report that we can get to following the discussion on these two or three items. I think they're all relatively minor and probably easily resolved with staff or based upon the staff comments in the staff report. It's more of the two or three major items that Liam can discuss in greater detail, but I'd be happy to take any questions from the board at this point to describe those in greater detail or Liam can kind of get into the justification on each of those. Well, why don't we go through the comments? I think that would be helpful here. Let me just call it up here. So the first staff comment that we have is regarding setbacks. The applicant has frozen to reduce previously approved setback to approximately 4.2 feet on lot 51 and reduced the spacing between homes a lot 51 to between 18 and 20 feet. Changes proposed to accommodate the two additional homes a lot 51 resulting in a total of 18 homes where 16 were previously approved on the slot. LDRs, 1502A4A prohibit side setbacks of less than five feet in all cases. And that it can be 10 feet, we can wave it to five, but we can't go less than five in accordance to staff, you're at 4.2. Board allows the applicant to locate 18 homes on lot 51, the board may, but it's not obligated to wave the requirement of the side setbacks to no less than five feet without the waiver of the room side setback, it's 10 feet. Other impacts of increasing the number of homes a lot 51 are included in the discussion from 908C1D and 14.06C below. So what is your take on the staff comment regarding your setback to 4.2 feet? Matt, may I ask a question please of the, about the staff report? It seems to me that there's a contradiction in like the fourth line down, it says the LDRs prohibit side yards. Side yard setbacks, less than five feet in all cases. And then two lines down, it says the board may, but it's not obligated to wave the required minimum side setback to no less than five feet. Are those statements contradictory or am I missing something? Thanks Dawn. Paul had a similar question when he was reviewing the staff comments and I really struggle with how to write this. The standard side setback in the zoning district is 10 feet. The board may allow waiver of the side setback in PDs but cannot allow it to be any less than five feet. Right, so standards 10, we can go down to five but we can't go less than five, is that right Marla? Right, and so the previous approval did not give any side setback waiver, it's just 10. So this would be a new setback. What they're asking for can't be allowed. I got it, thank you. We could go to five, but we can't go 4.2. So the question to the applicant is do you agree with our assessment or do you have a different interpretation of the LDRs or can you get to five and then there you can ask for a five foot setback? That's an open question to Chris. We can make it five or 10, whatever the board's preference is. It only applies in one location at the corner of unit 22 to an interior lot line. So it can easily be made five feet. It could be made 10 feet. It would slightly reduce the size of lot 52, the open space parcel, but it doesn't reduce the usable space on the open space parcel, which is on the south side of the wetland crossing. It would just move that property line, roughly halfway between the gravel access path, leading from Veil Drive to the open space in the corner of unit 22. So either five feet or 10, it could be usable. Can we look at that, Andy? Who's running the, is that Marla or Doyle, 22? Yeah, so Andy, I guess I'm a little surprised to hear your suggestion. Based on the review of the previously approved plan, I expected that instead of moving the lot line, you would in fact, propose to squish the five duplex homes closer to one another. But I guess that's kind of a, I don't think for the board to think about because that open space was a subject of much discussion, again, before my time, but was relatively thoroughly vetted at the previous approval. And I think that's actually more impactful to change that than to just squish the homes over a bit. And that would be fine as well, to be honest. That's why we didn't modify the perimeter of lot 52 because we didn't wanna touch the open space parcel at all. So, grabbing six inches or a foot here or there between the spacing of the homes on the west side of Veil Drive is also an option could yield the same result. And just to be clear, Marla, can you draw with a pen or Delilah where the setback is on 22 that we're examining? It's right there, yeah. Right, so these homes are 18 to 20 feet apart. So, that space would just get smaller if they were to increase the size of the setback. My comments would be, I mean, I agree with you that there was a lot of discussion about the open space. I think the open space question was really on the western portion during the initial permitting process. And so, not so much how the gravel path worked in the bridge that went over. And so, as we, you know, we do like to maintain 20 feet apart from each other on the buildings if possible from a fire safety perspective, it makes a difference. And so, you know, my preference would be to either, you know, move that lot line or make some other modifications so that we could maintain the distance between the buildings. Right, because the five foot setback or the 4.2 is to the lot line, not to the gravel path, right? Correct. Yeah. Yeah, well, you gotta either move the lot line or you gotta move your buildings in order to at least to get to us to ask for a five foot setback. In the angle of that line would be, you know, I mean, I think if we changed it an inch at the western intersection, you know, just south, it would end up being eight inches by the time we got to the, you know, we'd get to the final. Yeah. So I would suggest that- So you're coming up with a lot line adjustment. I would suggest we revisit this after we decide if you're gonna allow them to go forward with 20, two additional homes on lot 51, because this is details and- All right, let's put a pin in it. Good idea. Thank you, Marla. Let me get to the next one. Okay. Staff comment number two. There are around 40 mature trees identified along the eastern boundary. That will be the subject of a proposed nut coat, no covenants. Staff considers taking the trees at the eastern edges complimentary to the tree areas on adjacent properties and sketch the applicant testified that the relocated path allows preservation of mature trees along the eastern property boundary. Number two, comment based on an examination of the previously approved and currently proposed plans. It appears the proposed path relocation will allow the retention of approximately 12 to 20 inch trees. In addition to the existing trees, there's a proposed line of maple oak and cherry trees between the proposed homes in the eastern property line. Staff considers that may be possible to retain the impacted trees. If the proposed trees at this location were eliminated and the rec path shifted slightly to be located along private drive B. Staff recommends the board discuss this possibility with the applicant. Okay, can we see the trees and private drive B? Private drive B. Or is this a good image for it? Yeah, if you could just zoom in on sort of this area. Oh, I see, okay. So this isn't the landscaping plan, but you can see the circles with dots in the middle of them that are gray are the proposed trees. The black dots with numbers on them are the existing trees. And this is really the only pinch point where all of those things and the rec path can't coexist. Everywhere else farther left on the page, all three of those things can kind of play nicely together and continue to exist. The pinch point is where exactly, Marvel? Use your code form. Okay, got it. Okay, so the rec path shifted slightly would be able to retain the impacted trees. Well, Andy, you're telling me this is correct. I mean, this is based on me looking at your plans, not really doing full tab analysis. Is that a fair assessment? I think the bike path would need to be directly adjacent to drive B without a green strip. And the bike path might still be getting close to a few of those trees along the easterly property line. I think the other thing to consider is that you wouldn't have a green strip between private drive B and the bike path. It creates a little bit of an issue with snow storage and you don't have that buffer between the curb line and the paved path for both aesthetics and safety purposes just having that little bit of recovery area. Matt, can I ask a question? Yeah, go ahead, Mark. All right, so Andy, is that strip of the rec path adjacent to private drive B? Is that my interesting that that's the only place where we would lose the large established trees? And that's purpose, one of the reasons the discussion is to relocate it to a long veil drive. So in the previously approved plan, the bike path ran generally along the easterly boundary. It did meander a little bit to save the majority of the trees along that easterly property line. But adjacent to drive B, there was, I don't know if staff had counted them up. I think Marla had mentioned eight in her staff report that there is a few trees, right where the text is private drive B, that if the bike path was separated from private drive B, there would be some trees that would be removed there to the north that path meanders and maintains those trees. In the application that's before you, obviously, one of the requests is to have the bike path follow veil drive. I believe the neighbors in Liam talked about this a little bit at the sketch plan hearing was a second purpose of having the bike path relocated along veil drive was to remove that or distance it from the wildlife habitat block that exists to the east of this property on the adjacent lots. Okay. All right, so once you get beyond private drive B, you sort of can meander it so you don't have to do any cutting of existing mature trees. Yes, that's what was presented on the previously approved plans. So I guess one question I have and one thing I sort of see is a sort of semi compromise is Marla, can I take the highlighter here tool? Yes, everybody can draw. Okay, so you come and if you were following down here and as opposed to continuing down veil drive but if at this point you cut back up and then get back on the original path, we're not cutting any of the existing trees and we're not keeping the bike, the rec path on veil drive crossing over all of these established driveways and you're maintaining this section of existing mature trees without having to put it right next to the private drive. So I get that sort of one comment I hear, I see when I hear the discussion over one of the reasons to relocate the rec path off of private drive B and then we because I know in previous iterations we had talked at length about the ability of the bike path, rec path to go along the property line without having to cut and establish mature trees and it has the ability to sort of float in order to not do those cuts. That's sort of a comment slash question I have. Chris or Andy, do you want to, do you have any thoughts about that, Mark Scrum? I think Liam is actually trying to speak but Liam unfortunately we can't hear you. No, Liam undo your mute button. No, it's still not working. Okay. He's unmuted. Maybe his microphone isn't working. Could be, could be a microphone issue. Liam, if you can hear me and you're on your computer and you go to, cause I just went through this five minutes ago, you can go to a little thing that looks like a gear turning in the top right hand corner next to the three dots and you click on phone and you'll see a phone number. It says 1669-224-3412 with an access code of 764-667-405 at the pound sign. Bam, you can be on the phone and on the computer at the same time. Just make sure you shut off one of the speakers so you don't hear that awful feedback noise. While we're waiting for Liam, is there any other board members that have a comment on Mark's suggestion? That seems like a interesting compromise here that save the trees, get the bike path off the front driveways, which, you know, keep it in the back. I'd like to hear, I know Catherine Frank is by competitive committees on the phone. We're gonna turn to her in a moment. But, is there any board members that have a comment on Mark's compromise suggestion? Matt, it's John. I agree completely with Mark. I think that's a good solution. Yeah, okay. Seems interesting, seems like it might work. Okay. And I still wanna give Liam a chance to speak but I'm just gonna move to item number three, which is, or comment number three, which is while the preservation mature trees is one priority designing a project, staff considers there are a number of other criteria which apply to the location of the recreation path discussed throughout this document. Staff recommends the board determine whether mature trees on the eastern side of the property are unique natural features. And if so, discuss whether previously approved recreation path layout respects and provides suitable protection to mature trees. As always, staff encourages board members to visit the site individually to assess and making a determination on this criteria that board may also have wishes schedule a formal site visit as part of the hearing. We're in preliminary final plot. I think it's a great idea to go out and visit board members to visit sites. I do it quite frequently. I think it's especially places that I'm less familiar with. I don't see the need to schedule a formal site visit right now, something you could do individually but I'd be happy to entertain it if someone thought it was important. But it's a great way to see what we're looking at, not some paper, but to feel it, to see the trees. So that's a good recommendation. Thank you, staff. Liam, do we have, you know? Yes, I'll just shut off my audio. I apologize. This work has been working on new, I've been at too many Zoom hearings at nights and I know the failure. So I apologize. I was trying to jump in because it might have helped before we discussed this for me to make a small presentation about why we're doing this before we're getting into the comments because as, and if I ask the chair's permission if I can do that, now would you, I think it would help in this discussion to have some background on the reasoning because the reasoning is not only because of saving large trees on the boundary line. Of course that is one reason, but there are others and may I ask if I can make a small presentation? Yeah, go ahead, Liam. Do you have any visuals or you just wanna talk us through it? Yeah, I submitted to Delilah today some material, but let me first say, you know, pardon me. It's coming up, I'm just trying to get it oriented. So how did we get here? You know, as we told you at the sketch plan, there has been disputes about this property for many years. This last spring, the parties were able to come together and fashion a settlement agreement that tried what we thought were to come to something that was a reasonable resolution to do, but we thought were some fairly minor amendments to the existing plan. When we came to you for sketch plan, in addition to the issues that we had now, we had suggested trying to make the streets and not a through street in order to protect the neighborhoods from traffic and also on the north side, not to extend the street towards the UVM with a hope that that might limit its development in the future. We've heard you and the staff loud and clear that that's something that was not likely to be approved. So we removed that from these plans, but there's some real thought and reasoning about why we got to where we got to, particularly on the movement of the recreational past along the east only boundary. And a lot has to do with my and many of the other people here sitting in on hearings by your city with the planning commission over the last year, particularly last spring. The city twice now, I think in 2004 or six and now in 2020 has engaged specialists to do habitat assessments of the city. And I would invite environmental, did this habitat assessment? It was just, you know, last January that it was completed. And in that habitat assessment, if you go to the next page, this particular block was, and I apologize because of some of the standing these things are. So we're looking now in east is at the north and you can see Swiss street is on the left and spear street is on the south. This property and the adjacent woods that go through Meadowwood Drive and then also on the west side of the golf course was identified as a significant habitat block that was left in the city. It was assessed 25. This was block number eight, but ranked as block number 22. And the primary reason that it was ranked low in the ranking was because of its size, the study gave more weight to properties that were a larger size. If you would go to the next page and I think this is the most important part of this and if you could, I can get it on my screen here and I can blow it up a little bit. But what Arrowwood said, and this, you know, as you know, I practice land use law and I go to a lot of Act 250 hearings and a lot of land use hearings and I've heard this in many a place, but it is clear here what they have said and that is that what they're talking about is the fact that South Burlington does have these habitat blocks, but they're separated from each other. They're not connected. So they emphasize that the connections between the habitat blocks are important. And it says because of the smaller and already fragmented nature of the habitat blocks in South Burlington, the ability to move across the landscaping, stepping stone fashion between blocks and critically important habitat is a critically important habitat block parameter for species such as fox, fisher, bobcat, accessing multiple habitat blocks and their intermashed supporting habitats to make up for smaller, more fragmented nature of the habitat blocks is of vital importance. Streams and 10 foot either side of streams were the least low-cost preference travel routes. Now, this is important. Narrow hedge lot rows have been showed to provide preferential movement for bobcats in particular, but also in the testimony about the other animals that the neighbors have all seen out there, in particular in South Burlington and surrounding area. So the tree canopy was considered a low-cost option for preservation of these blocks. And then it goes on to say that while the smallest blocks were generally ranked low, that was this block, it was ranked 22. We stress it remains important to consider the connectivity of larger habitat blocks when making decisions about prior prioritization of habitat protection in South Burlington. Some small patches situated curriculum between two larger blocks may have less value on their own, but as a stepping stone to maintaining a functional wildlife population connections between the higher ranked blocks, the small patches could be critical. We encourage the city not to just consider habitat blocks, but critical connections between them when planning for habitat wildlife protection. They all go on to mention that east of here are the east woods and the centennial woods and they're two of the highest ranked habitat blocks. So if you would go to the next slide, this was presented to the Planning Commission and they undertook a study and identified a number of high critical parcels which to conserve for the city and these are the blocks that were identified as crime areas for conservation. Now as to this block which was labeled in that analysis as block 101, it was noted that this is already on the subject to development, but if you look at its context with the blocks to the norm, you can see that between the large great swamp block to the south and then the lighter pink areas which were connecting habitats that this provides a connectivity to the large priority blocks for wildlife to the north. If you go to the next slide, that was this is the individual slide that indicated the priority and the number of parcels. If you go to the next report, that what I would say is this was, that was presented to the city council. It was adopted by the city council at city policy as a priority conservation parcels. Then in addition, the city had a study of what is the capital value of open space parcels such as these, if you go to the next and this again is in April. So we've on January to March to April that the city has undertaken these studies. What you see here, this is if you could enlarge block 101 is the block here. What this is showing is the land covering and what's important to see is the dark green connections just to the east of block 101 and then to the north and south of block 101 creating a wildlife corridor through the center of the city connecting the large parcels to the south to the parcels to the north. And that connectivity goes along the easterly side of this property in meadow wood and then also toward the east. So if you go to the next parcel, the next slide. This identified two particular areas to look at for protection. And you can see here that the stream that actually goes through this center of this property is connected to the larger stream complex to the north. And if you go down to the bottom of that page, I tried to blow these up on the, actually if you go to the next page I try to blow those both up there. They were very hard to see. So here, if you go down, actually if you just go down to the next slide I think I try to blow them up. So you can see here again with, this would have switched streets on the north that some arrow points to the parcel. You can see the connectivity of the riparian corridor there and the green space to the east. If you would go to the next last slide, again, I was taking these off the city website and I'm blowing them up. Again, you can see this large green connectivity going through just to the east of this and along the boundary of the property. So why are we concerned about this bike path going through here? It's not only to protect the trees because these animals go through often the brush, the small vegetation and as well as the trees provide that canopy cover to help protect it. In addition, what happens when you put a recreational calf immediately next to the wildlife corridor? It makes it very, very difficult for the wildlife to use it as a corridor because of the proximity of humans who are going to be on that bike path from before dawn till well after dark. So the impact of the bike path has a potential massive effect upon this wildlife corridor that goes through the center of the city which you and your taxpayers just made a lot of money to get these studies done to conserve the land. Obviously, if these studies were done 10 years ago, this property may or may not have been developed in the way in the manner that it had been done but the closure rise now to the studies that the town, the city, excuse me, has already done seems to be such a rejection of the conservation policies that the planning commission and the conservation commission and the city council have espoused. And it's an easy fix. You know, what are we talking about? We're talking to the south, the entire recreational path is along the streets and the sidewalk. There is, to the north, it dead ends. So you're talking about a strip, I don't know how long we're talking about here, a very short strip of recreational path, the benefits of which to the recreational community are limited, but the impact to the wildlife corridor is significant. And so to us, we do not understand why the staff has chosen to say that it is more important to have the recreational path not cross the driveways of these houses on the east side of Vale Drive versus protecting these trees. And it's more than just, as I said, it's more than just the identified large trees. It's the whole concept that there would be a area back there that would be protected. There would be no cut zone that would become wildlife free, a person free area. So that's why we think that the entire bike path should be removed. And that, you know, we would think that also that area where lots one and two, or houses one and two previously were on the north side, but also allows for the connectivity back from that corridor to the stormwater pond and then back to the stream area. Finally, the other area is stormwater. You know, right now by co-locating the recreational path along the roadway and along the sidewalk, you remove all of the stormwater that might be done will be done by having a new recreational path in an area that there's not one now. So we really ask you to think about the balance here and that you will do as you're proceeding. Now that these studies have been adopted, you're gonna be hearing about them more and more as to how they have an impact upon future development. And this is a good place to start. Final comment. Thank you very much. Thank you. No, no, no, just one, just one very simple final comment. I thought that was your final comment. Okay. I apologize. I apologize. What's your final comment? Now the final comment is it took a lot to bring the neighbors and the owners and developers of this property together to come to a settlement. It is quite, it's gonna be quite discouraging as we go forward. And there will be other issues like this coming before you where after the developer and the neighbor come together and say, we can live with this if we can get this changed that the staff in particular says, no hard line, we're not gonna recommend this because it discourages settlement of disputes between neighboring owners. And we think that by recognizing that there was some hard work put into this and that instead of, and we would ask you to just support the settlement that the parties have come to. Thank you. So thank you, Liam. And I'm gonna ask Marla to talk to you a second. I just want to push back on a couple of things with you. And first of all, defend the staff. We put a lot of work into this, those current and previous staff as have the applicants in the neighbors. I understand all this. But we referenced the Arrowhead Habitat Block Assessment, the Earth Economic Natural Capital Evaluation, the Interim Zoning Open Space Committee Final Report. Those are all planning documents, but they are not regulations. They may guide future policy, but staff is in the board, have to enforce the existing land development regulations whether we like them or not. And where staff may interpret things differently, we're the check on that. And so that's where we're at. Marla, you had a question or a comment? Yeah, I was just gonna correct a couple of things that Liam said. And actually he would send them correctly at sketch. And so mostly I'm reiterating what Liam had said himself at sketch, which is that these reports are reports and not adopted by the city as policy documents in any way. The Capitalization Report and the Arrowhead Report were undertaken by the Planning Commission. The state actually tasks the Planning Commission with undertaking studies to help them inform policymaking. And these are two of the studies the city has undertaken. They've also undertaken studies on bicycle pedestrian connectivity, economic development, affordable housing, all those sorts of things. The other document that Liam mentioned that the city council has adopted, city council has accepted the open space committee report with the letter accompanying it, specifically saying the report itself, however carries no policy weight without further action by the council and is not a regulatory document for supporting documentation there too. So again, Liam mentioned these things at sketch. I just thought it was really important to bring them up again. The board is obviously when there is a gray area and the regulations has the flexibility to make decisions based on best practices in the industry. And I think that there are some gray areas in a lot of parts of the regulations. And so best practices include considering all of the factors just as the Planning Commission does when they undertake these studies, considering economics, considering impacts to recreation, to commuters, transportation and open space and wildlife. And I know that the bike and pet committee has some thoughts on this relocated and recreation path as well. Right, so we absolutely, I understand the sentiment. You want us to encourage the applicants and neighbors and particularly whether it's conflict or has been conflict to work together. I absolutely 100% agree with that, Liam, anyone else listening, we want that. But we can't ignore the LDRs and we can't simply say because we worked out a deal that we have to honor that deal. We want to honor the deal where there's a gray area is absolutely top of my mind to respect that. But that still doesn't negate our duties to enforce the LDRs as written and passed by the city council. Because we're talking about the bike path because we had a proposal or a suggestion by Mark because we heard from Liam extensively, I'd like to invite Catherine Frank with the bike and pet committee. She has the opportunity to comment on some of the discussions that she and her committee have had. She can either talk, enter in the chat box. But I want to make sure that bike and pet get an opportunity to say what they think. Catherine? Yes, can you hear me? I can hear you, Catherine. Okay. Yeah, the bike and pet committee discussed this thoroughly last week. Spear Street is a difficult street for pedestrians and cyclists just because there are no sidewalks or a few sidewalks and the bike lanes are very small. So the main current thinking is the main pathway for cyclists and pedestrians to get from the southern border of South Burlington starting at South Village would go through this area, South Village, which will then connect to South Point, which will then connect to Underwood. And Underwood is about to get its bike path, I believe this summer, if all goes well, a turn onto Nolan Farm, then Bale Drive, and then come down this way as the main route to get to Swift Street. So it doesn't look like Spear Street will ever get a bike path, which really makes it hard on pedestrians and leaves it only to the most fearless cyclists to use. So we think it's an important link in what's gonna go from South to North in this part of South Burlington. By putting it in front and forcing people to go through across all those driveways, I think it's difficult when you think of who's gonna be using the bike path. And it's not gonna be your high speed cyclist, it's going to be families, individuals, older people. And I know the house I live in has a driveway that backs across the sidewalk. And I know how hard it is to look back when you're backing out to make sure no one is coming. So I think that is an unfortunate roadblock for the type of people who will be using it. As far as the wildlife habitat, I'm not convinced that a bike path would discourage the wildlife from going across there. It after all is not a building. And it's certainly not going to have a train of people going from early morning to well after dark. So I still think it's important that the better location for it is behind those homes. And I don't think the bike path's gonna discourage the wildlife any more than the houses themselves will, quite frankly. We have a lot of wildlife where I live in houses and the coyotes or whatever are not discouraged from walking down the street. I would say I do like the suggested, and I'm just speaking for myself now, not the committee because they didn't think of this, but that's a path that's being drawn right now that would move the bike path back behind the houses after you get by the houses that don't have driveways. Okay, thank you very much, Catherine. And that was the, and you speak not just for yourself, but for the bike and pet committee, I assume. Is that correct? Yes, yes. Okay, great. Thank you very much for your comments, I appreciate it. Okay, so we have the suggestion from Mr. Gallagher that the bike path remain in front of the buildings. We have suggestion from bike and pet and staff that it be behind. We have the sort of the yellow line compromise that Mark came up with. Any comments from staff or from the board regarding all these decisions to make regarding the specific issue? Yeah, Mac, I just want to throw one more comment out on that issue. Sure. You know, when I initially made that proposal about the compromise, it was, you know, it was with the thought of, you know, trying to protect those mature trees along private drive B and knowing that we had, you know, worked out over the many, many years of this project, the fact that the rec path could go along the property line along the existing tree canopies without really having to cut down many existing trees and really affecting it too much as it can meander. But also in the back of my mind was the issue that Catherine brought up of the pedestrian safety or the, you know, the bicyclists. You know, these aren't going to be the guys that got on the weekend and do 100 miles in a group, you know, with every weekend, these are going to be the, you know, the sort of crossing from neighborhood to neighborhood, kids, you know, parents with kids. And I'm really nervous, really nervous about the issue of that number of driveways intersecting a rec path. Sidewalk, you expect to watch for pedestrians. You expect the pedestrians to watch for cars backing out. But when you're on a city rec path, you just want to go. You're not going to look at every single driveway to see are there brake lights or the reverse lights? Is there someone in the car? And I just think it's an accident waiting to happen for a moderate compromise to put the rec path behind the housing, which the housing itself is going to be a disruption to the wildlife corridor. And they're just going to shift further into the wooded area. I understand Mr. Murphy's comments about, you know, the tree canopy, but I think when it comes to pedestrian safety, this is an acceptable compromise in my book to, you know, put it back behind the houses and then come back out on the other side of unit three. Okay. Thank you, Mark. Appreciate that. Any other board members have a comment? Before we move on to item number four. Okay, then I'll move on to item number four, which is the fire chief has reviewed fire chief of the plans on November 25th. This is the biggest issue for them is the extension of veil drives, the triplexes scaling the corner out looks like the fire department can't make the corner. Also based on rather negative experience on Midland Street extension two weeks ago, the narrow street profile doesn't work. Looks like an 18 foot width, one of our engineers lock mirrors with a panel truck recently, fortunately minor damage for both units. We're going to follow NFPA one stage chapter 18 for access. So at the time that SD 17 was approved, the fire chief did not identify issues of the proposed veil drive extension. The fire chief's current comments are based on experience with recently constructed similar roadway. No changes are proposed to the area described by the fire chief, which I've considered as a new review for does have the authority to require the south end of veil drive to be widened to 20 feet to have the curve radius adjusted to better accommodate fire access. Staff are going to more discuss whether require the applicant to comply with the fire chief's comments. I first turned to the applicant, Chris, do you have a response to the fire chief's comments about widening the road to 20 feet? Andy, do you want to, I mean NFPA one is 20 foot minimum for a fire access. The 18 feet was previously proposed. Don't know if it has a foundation in the LDRs, but it was done as a traffic calming measure. It's both 18 feet actually at the connection to the veil drive cul-de-sac at pinnacle its beer, as well as the wetland crossing where Elm Street approaches the veil drive intersection. So if the south end, it was done as a traffic calming measure. It was done at the north end as a means to reduce wetland impact. And it also has a traffic calming impact there as well, especially to the south. I do remember that conversation with Howard Merriman years ago that was about that reduced impact on wetlands and traffic calming. Yeah, so the LDRs do the 18 feet, but it's not a requirement. It's a guideline in the LDRs for wetland crossings. Mark, do you have a yellow pen compromise that you can propose here or not? You know, I mean, it's one thing when you do an 18 foot for wetland crossing because it's a limited amount of time. You know, it's a short, it's like, you know, when you cross another vehicle on a three lane residential and there's vehicle park and two cars are coming, you know, you give a little, you take a little. It's another one. It's a long stretch of 18 feet. And because then, you know, two vehicles in the afternoon sort of shift over a little bit and just give, you have this long straightaway, you know? And also, you know, that the end of it really does, like turns into a right hand turn or a left hand turn or right hand turn into it. I don't, I think 20 feet is fine. Maybe if you wanna put one neck of 18, but at that point it's kind of a moot point. I get the issue of trying to get down to 18 feet to either discourage through traffic or make it as slow as possible. I just don't see the through traffic concern that you're gonna, you know, we're worried about or the thoughts and discussions are because, you know, going down to Spear Street and turning right is gonna be a lot faster than cutting through Vale Drive, going through this neighborhood, getting on to Spear Street and turning right. So, I mean, I think we originally had a design, you know, that, you know, seemed to work a little better. And, you know, I think we need to follow the fire chief's advice on this. You know, we rarely go against them and I think we just need to follow his recommendation here. Okay, any other comments from the board regarding going from 18 to 20? That's John, I agree with Mark that we've gotta follow public safety. So, I don't disagree. I think one thing that I'm seeing in the fire chief's comments from time to time is this failure to recognize the dichotomy of, and I don't think it applies here, but I just wanna say this because it feels like the right time. The dichotomy of public safety in an instant versus public safety over time. You know, if we were talking about a 20 foot wide roadway versus a 22 foot wide roadway, a 22 foot wide roadway, people are gonna drive faster and then you're gonna have kids crossing the street and that creates a public safety issue that it probably occurs more frequently than, you know, a fire truck and a large box start coming opposite each other. Like I said, I don't think that necessarily applies in this case, but I think it's something good for the board to keep in mind. It's sort of the acute public safety issue and the chronic public safety issue that are at tension in a lot of these cases. Yeah, I think it's a very good point, Marla. And these are the things we have to weigh in deliberations whether we're talking about bobcats and bicycles or trucks getting mirrors clipped and slowing down traffic. So thank you for that. Okay, now we're back to the path. We sort of took things out of order and I apologize to everyone about that, but the South Burlington Pedestrian Bicycle Feasibility study prepared by PCRPC in April. Student presence of a high comfort route in the location of the approved path connecting Allen Road, the Swift Street, the conclusion of the study, including the assumptions of that approved path would be constructed, drove the city's decision to not include bike lanes or other bicycle accommodations along the section of Spear Street. Like in Ped Committee, indicated desire feedback. They met before this, after this topic was published, we just heard from Catherine Frank, but I want to read the staff comments even though we went out of order there. Staff considers the way the evidence is against relocating the path and therefore recommends the board deny the proposal to relocate the recreation path and is to move it to the sidewalk, correct Marla? Do I have that right? Interpretation, correct? And therefore recommends the board deny the proposal to relocate the regulation path along the roadway unless the air for air to four unknown evidence is in favor presented. Staff considers such a denial does not preclude the applicant for proceeding with the proposed no covenant. Number six, the driveways, driveways, recreation paths are proposed 20 feet wide, is there a single family home? Should the board allow the recreation path to be relocated? Staff considers a reduction of travel which should be required, okay? So that's amongst the considerations we'll do in deliberations. We did receive email from Catherine Frank, but she also spoke, so thank you for that. Just wave your hand or shout my name if you want to add more to that, but appreciate your commentary and your reflection of the bike and pet committee's deliberations. Moving on to agenda item number seven, as noted above, the relocated path does have a negative impact on pedestrian safety though it's unlikely it's on route. Staff recommends the board just, hold on one second, just let me get through seven. Staff recommends the board discuss whether the proposed project continues to meet this criteria. Further discussion of the rearranged home is under 908 CD1 below. Okay, sorry, who just spoke? Is that Leah Murphy? Mr. Murphy? I see you waving your hand. I can't hear you though. Got you now. No, I had my hand up for a while, but just before you move away from the path, I agree your comments were that you have to follow the LDRs and we understand that and that is why we removed our request regarding the roadways because it was clear that there was a provision. As you just read here, what's competing is a report of the series of conservation commissions, planning commissions, not part of the LDRs, but also a report of the bike path commission, also not part of the LDRs. As the staff says, it's what is the weight of evidence? And now we ask you to just say, there is no LDR that says the bike path should be behind the buildings or in front of the building. It is a weight of evidence of which is the better approach and I'll leave it at that for you to decide in your deliberative session. That's well plus. Thank you very much, Ms. Murphy. Well said. Okay, so as noted above, the relocated path does have a somewhat negative impact in comparison to safety. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether proposed project continues to meet this criteria for the discussion of the rearranged home besonder. I know it's the, sorry, I skipped ahead. I should, so Marla, I think I screwed this up. No, I think you're okay. So this, so when we get into staff comment, we're starting to talk about relocation of the two homes from the north end of the project. There we go. That's right. That's right. The two homes. Can we, can we zero in on those? So the staff member seven is, as Delilah seems into it, is sort of talking about changing from a mix of single family homes and duplexes to all duplexes. And one of the, yeah, so one of the things that was brought up in sketch is that the proposed relocation has the potential to create sort of three separate blocks as opposed to an integrated development. And so does this proposed modification continue to meet the requirement that the site be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure. And then adequate planting and pedestrian movement, which we'd already discussed in other ways. Okay. I guess I don't have a stronger opinion then. Is there anyone on the board that wants to, react to that staff comment? I'll go in on that. And that was sort of my comments from the sketch plan as well. But this one, you know, I don't have as much of a feeling as the initial, you know, cutting off veil drive with emergency access only or relocating the bike path, you know, rec path. But I do agree with staff because that was sort of my stronger feeling at the time that by relocating, you know, units one and two and putting it all into the duplexes, you do create sort of like, you know, blocks of housing types. And also before you had a mix of duplexes and single families on the side of the street on veil, now you have all duplexes and they're very tight together. Before you had some gaps, you know, that sort of allowed a little more of a less dense feel. And also, you know, but at the same time, that's my feeling, but I could live with it either way. I think we saw it this way initially. I wouldn't have, I wouldn't feel strongly that it's not, you know, conducive because, you know, just by a mixture of housing types, you have a mix on the overall site, but the original plan that we approved did a better job of it. But seeing it now, I could go either way. I don't feel super strongly, but I prefer the previous iteration with the two units at the end of veil drive and the mix of duplexes and single families spaced out a little better on, you know, the side of veil drive. Mark, this is Dawn. You're certainly the architect. I am not, but in reading through the materials, it seemed like a lot of thought was put into how to have unifying elements, but also different enough external facades and I don't know what the word is, you know, different kinds of siding and different kinds of stone that it could be, I think, fairly interesting. I was impressed with the pictures, the examples of the units. So I think that would add some variation that might, you know, make it look less blocky than it otherwise could look. You're talking about the original layout? No, I'm talking about this layout with the kind of variation that they spoke about committing to in the application. I think it won't look as blocky as it otherwise might have, but again, I'm not the architect. Yeah, I mean, I'm not as concerned about that issue, like, you know, because yeah, everything can be done if it's done with sensitivity to make it have a nice aesthetic feel and that's gonna be market driven, you know? Chris isn't gonna wanna put out a, you know, poorly designed looking product because it'll affect, you know, his overall marketing ability on it. I'm more talking about the fact that the original, you know, site plan that we approved did have a mix and it had those two units at the end of the drive, they'll drive that for me made it feel like you were sort of planning for a future expansion, whether it happened or didn't happen. And you also had a mix of single family and duplexes along the west side of Vail Drive. And, you know, but this one, I don't have as much of a heartache over as the Vail Drive disconnect with the emergency vehicle access and the relocation of the rec path because those I felt were more planning and pedestrian safety and, you know, emergency access related issues and this one, you know, isn't something I'm willing to kind of go to bat over. I just thought the original layout was a better layout. And when you say original layout, Mark, you were talking about the one that was already approved by one that's currently approved, correct? That had currently approved, correct? Yeah. I'm gonna interject because the comment number nine sort of talks about this question V, and maybe Chris has an answer to this. The provided elevations show a bunch of variations that Dawn mentioned for the single family homes. Do you have more than one type for the duplexes? Because all you submitted was one type. So there are, well, there's, so along Elm Street and along Vail Drive. So on the northern side of Elm Street, in the western side of Vail Drive, there are, that's one, generally that's one product type. That's a duplex with a side load or a front, like a, how they're connected, that's one product type. The type of homes along Halcyon Lane are a different type of duplex. Or singles. And then home sites number three through 12 are what we call carriage homes, small, one, well, they're not necessarily small, but they're a footprint lot with more of a single family. And then the fourth product type is the triplexes, which are garage, a rear loaded garage with the front entrance off of the front of the home leading to the bike path sidewalk. Marla, I think what you're gonna get in step comment number nine is that we need to know that it's meeting the LDRs and that we're having the five variables, or two of the five variables need to change. And just the plan, like that comes with the, that's a, is that a condition or is that have to be built into the final plan? Well, I was sort of hoping to tackle the bigger question of, you know, is there variability between the duplexes? But then if the board feels that, you know, having these one, two, three, four, five, seven duplexes together in a row, that's okay. But the applicant is still beholden to these home design guidelines and can they be met with the one type? Because there are some restrictions on like varying siding materials and windows and whatever. So yeah, what Delilah has up now are, I think the type that would be here and the... Those are along Elm's side of western side of Vale Drive. So the, Delilah, can you go back up to the previous page? So in this, I think the garage to the second home is facing the right and it's kind of there, is that right? Yeah, that's correct. Okay. And then so it would be this and then like a mirror and then this and a mirror as you go down the street. Yeah, yeah. So how does the board, anybody else other than Mark and Dawn wanna weigh in on this? Yeah, it's John. I find them very attractive. I have no problem. And the varying the two out of the five elements, that's in the conditions. Correct. Right. So they're gonna have to be able to achieve two of the five variables every time I haven't run the math, but I think it works. You know, the one thing I am worried about is, and I mean, Dawn brought up a good point and you know, staff comments about having sort of blocks and housing types, you know, we thought that, to be honest, you know, we thought that on Market Street that, you know, it's a row of houses that we, that was approved the two separate projects. You know, we said, oh, let's change, we'll ask them to change the roof line, we'll ask them to do a little bit here and there. And so they'll have a differential feel. They look like the exact same, you know, unit all the way down the street, you know. And part of my concern with this is, is that you're gonna get a similar sort of rhythmic feel to it. And I just think it's a poor, it's a poorer, you know, excuse my poor grammar, but it's a poor, you know, planning layout than the original approved, which had a good mix, something that would show differentiation going down the street. But, and I think that it's being done to achieve, you know, neighbor to neighbor relations, not for some change that needs to take place. And I'm not discounting those ideas and the need to sort of work with your neighbors, but, you know, is changing the overall look of the development by packing these units in here and splitting out, getting rid of the mix, sort of worth it. But again, I can be certainly something to be discussed and I'm not sold one way or another. I'm just weighing my opinion on it's become less of a quality project because of this change. Well, with regard to the two things, which is seven and nine, I don't know if I've said anything yet, but I always want to echo Mark's comments regarding the previously approved, the currently approved project did have a slightly more dynamic mix of housing kites. But, you know, seeing where those triplexes are and what I think is a, one of the nicer, very nice part of that property, you know, I would be concerned if the triplexes were being shoved in an undesirable area, but I think the opposite is true from my time viewing that site. So I don't have it, I don't, and I think the quality is great and I don't have to worry about that. Yes, we should have them mix it up and I think that's part of the condition that they'll have to follow. I would leave it to others though to say whether or not they have met that, but I'm fine with the way they're positioned here, but recognizing Mark's accurate remembrance of the currently approved project having a different, slightly more desirable mix, but I'm not going to ask them to change it. Anyone else want to talk about the mix of homes? So they're not identical, please do achieve that. If not, I'd like to go back to eight, which is, seems like a small issue, but one that we could fix, which is the landscaping around the utility cabinets can be a maintain landscape of evergreen or mix of evergreen and deciduous, but I see what, or solid fence, but I see that the staff recommends the board has to have again if this was included in error, but specifically calls out that evergreen shall not be used. So as I understand the 1306 C2, you could screen your utility cabinets with a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs and or solid fence, but it just can't be deciduous. It has to have some evergreen, is that correct? That's what it says. Andy or Chris, have you had some problem with GMP? Is that why you called it out or was that just an error? No, I went back and looked at it again, again. I don't think it's worth spending a whole lot of time on this one, but I was reading it as deciduous or evergreens. And because of the proximity of some of those pedestals to the paved path and the likelihood that the paved path would be salted and potentially snow push from the path towards those utilities, we went with deciduous just because of the potential issues with the evergreens. Evergreens are also, I mean, certainly Arborvite would be fine there. A lot of the evergreens that are being planted around the foundations are relatively low-growing and wouldn't effectively screen, but we could certainly add in Arborvite and find one or two other evergreens to include in that list. It was intentional, but again, we can incorporate evergreens into that requirement to satisfy the desire to have those. Thank you, Andy. I'm thinking the board can sort out and deliberations what they want to do then. Okay. More city arborist issues, city arborist reviews of the plans and offers the following comment. Overall, the landscape goes good. My only suggestion would be to reduce the percentage of maple so that it's no more than 20% of street trees. Maples are overrepresented in the city's tree population and reducing the number of maples planted will help start to bring that back into balance. That's the recommendation from the city arborist. Number 10, staff recommends the board require the applicant to revise the plant list to comply with the city arborist's comment and update the landscaping budget worksheet to reflect the proposed planting. Is that agreeable, Andy or Chris, to revise your maples? Yes. Okay. Number 11, staff further recommends the board offer the applicant the opportunity to provide a landscaping cost for each phase to reduce the required bonding amount. No phase cost is provided. The applicant will be required to provide a bond for the full value at the time of the zoning permit for the first infrastructure phase. So here's your opportunity if you would prefer to phase it and pay less of a bond up front. What say you? Yes. Yes. You'll phase it. Phase it. Or you'll pay the full bond, you'll phase it. Okay. Marla, do you need details on that now? We're gonna have to continue. So no, they can provide a prior hearing. Moving on to number 12. The area adjacent to the utility boundary of the property marked no tree cutting on the subdivision and footprint lot flattened overall site plan shall be retained in its natural state in order to facilitate continued use as a natural wildlife corridor. A lot of owner may not cut trees, brush, or other vegetation within the designated area except invasive species such as honey, falafel, and buckthorn may be cut or removed. Well, staff has no issue with the attention of existing vegetation staff or can support a consider revising the applicant to include a provision for removal of dead trees as a standing dead vegetation can present a safety hazard. Yeah, so a clause to your no cut covenants that you can take away dead trees that's agreeable to the applicant? Yes. Yeah, all right. Good. And scrolling, scrolling, scrolling. The stormwater chief looked at it. The board denied, so if you read the comments from the city stormwater section chief, the board denies the proposed project modification staff concerns they should also find compliance with the stormwater management criteria 1203, not met, or the board does not accept the proposed project modification. That recommends the board continue the hearing to allow the applicant to make the requested stormwater modification that any such continuation should allow sufficient time for the city stormwater section chief to review staff therefore recommend the board provide clear direction to the applicant on whether they should invest time to address this criteria. Good staff, no. Farla, can you further expound on that form of the stormwater issue? I tried so hard in the first instance. So this was actually the applicant's request. The comments of the stormwater section are pretty significant to address but they are surmountable. And so the applicant didn't want to invest that time unless they were headed towards the yes in general. So if the board's going to deny the project why invest the time improving the stormwater system they're just gonna build the project as previously approved. So they're looking for- I see, I get it. What's the direction of the board in general couch framed as a stormwater question? Just to give the board a little bit of an idea just to give the board a little bit of an idea of what is the result of these comments from Dave Wheeler is under the previous rules in the LDRs that were in effect at the time a wet pond was suitable and approved under the previous design with the current regulations that wet pond would be replaced by a gravel wetland. The gravel wetland probably would have the same footprint. It has a different cross section would look a little bit different and we just wanted to get direction from the board before we made those design changes. So it's not gonna change the layout of the streets or the layout of the homes. It's still confiding the stormwater management practice to that location where it's currently shown actually the two locations where they're currently shown would just be a different tool in the toolbox to accomplish the requirement. Okay, so back to what Marla was saying. I have a technical question. Does this at any time, perhaps they should ask us some deliberations but I've already started so I'm gonna continue. If when we close this, after we continue we hear more testimony, whatever the time is that we close this and we issue a decision. Does the previous decision on this piece of land exist parallel to this other decision? In other words, could they have two approval for two different projects on the same piece of land or does one, then does the other one go away? Once in one, if it does, when does it go away? I'm gonna answer only the second part of your question. Okay. It only goes away if they, if the board approves it and they finalize it. So if the board approves it, they still have to record a mylar in the land records. And if they don't, if they let that lapse, they have to record it in six months, if they let that lapse, then I believe the previous approval will still stand. Though that gets a little fuzzy and I'd probably want to talk to our attorney. Yeah, what I'm getting at is- But if you deny this application, then the previous approval does stand. Okay. So when it comes to some of the more thorny issues in this, which is frankly the bypass than where it's placed. Or, I mean, because I think we resolved the, or somewhat resolved and sketched the issue of the connection to unveil. We can approve with a condition that the bike path be here, there, wherever it is. So we can approve it, but it may not be satisfactory to the applicant and interested parties. Correct? Well, you can only approve either, you can either approve what they proposed. You can ask them to come back before you close and propose something else. Or you can deny it. Yeah, but what we're talking about is a bike path or trees, we don't put a condition, we can't condition that, that has to be in the plan that they present that we either approve or deny. Right. Okay. So the question is, should you invest money in storm water? I can only speak for myself with a storm water plan or what you just described. I'm not interested in having a bike path in front of the houses. And I would deny a project that did that for safety issues. I would listen to the captain, Frank of the bike and bike committee and I would go that direction. And if you were to pursue it, but that's just me. I don't speak for the other six members of the board or the five in this case. So, anyone else wanna ask them whether they should make the investment in storm water design? Based on what you've seen so far this project. I agree with you. I'm not interested in bike path, bike path going along the front of the houses. I think that we did sort of, we have passed out the issue of the connection to veil drive with the widening it and modifying the curve to make the fire chief happy. Again, I'm not happy about the change to the density and all that, but it's not something that, I'm gonna hold up the project over. I would have preferred the previous. I think that it was a better design project, but that's not one where I think it's sort of like a big hang up like the bike path location. So, with the bike path relocation, I could support it and the correcting of the veil drive with, I'd prefer to do that, but I'm happy with the job, I'm sorry. That's John, I mean, I don't have a problem with project as a whole. I think part of the problem I have with the bike path relates to the fact that we spent years on this and came to a conclusion that the right answer was to put it in the back. I still believe that's the right answer. So, yeah, I have problems with it being, maybe there's a different solution altogether. I don't know what it is, but I'm inclined to think that I like the, I'm inclined to think that it's approvable, but I'm also inclined to assume that everybody's gonna be reasonable and I don't know that that's the case. So, I think this is a question for them. They've gotta figure this out on their own as to whether they wanna put the investment in, but I would intend to keep the bike path to the back. I have a lot to offer. I mean, I don't disagree with what John just said. All right, just checking, scrolling, scrolling, sorry. That's it for comments. Does the applicant have any questions for staff or the board before I ask the public for their opinion on these issues? Okay, so now I wanna make sure that the public has an opportunity to comment on this preliminary and final plat application for spirit meadows. So if you would like to make a comment, there's two ways you can go about it. One is just by hitting that little circle in the top and putting your name in it and saying I'd like to make a comment or you could just add your comment and I can read it or you can say your name and I'll call on you and everyone will get at least three minutes to speak. So if you have a comment regarding this project, please enter your name into the chat box or say your name now. Okay, looking at the chat box and not seeing anyone who was just to make a public comment. I will scroll through it real quickly to make sure I don't leave anyone out. And okay, and not seeing that, not hearing it. Then I would ask that we continue this. Marla, do you have a date? Chris? Andy, do you have a, do you have a preference? If we were to, as soon as we can accept a continuation this January 20th, and we would need materials from the applicant by the, can I get some nodding from Chris or Andy? Yeah. The January 5th is okay. Do we have to have the stormwater, I guess? Well, we're, that's a, okay. Andy, what do you think? Or Matt? Yeah, can we get back to, you know. You can, we have to continue it. Now, if you come to us and that's for a continuance, we have granted second, you know, we can continue it again, which we got to get you on the calendar. We can't close this, so. Yeah. So for January 20th, and then, you know, have a pow out with your team. Let me know, you know, before the January 5th hearing and the board can give you a new date if you, if that one doesn't work for you. And I move that we continue preliminary and final plan application SD 2041 of Snyder Group Incorporated to January 20th. Is there a second? I'll second that. Seconded by Don and do a roll call. Alyssa. Aye. Jim, not hearing Jim. John. Aye. Mark. Aye. And Matt, I think I might need this now. Okay. Jim, how do you vote? I'm aye. Sorry. Okay. Brian is refused and Matt Coley chair votes aye. And 5-0-6-0-1. This is continued until January 20th. Thank you very much. Moving on to the next item on the agenda, next item on the agenda, the site plan application SB 2035 and conditional use application CU 2002 of Reart Company to amend a previously approved plan for commercial parking to vacant 54,459 square foot building. The amendment consists of converting the use to general office and expanding the existing parking lot at one, two, four technology parkway. Who is here for the applicant? I am Steven Savelle with Reart. Hi, Steven, how are you? Matt, how are you? They're good. Is there anyone here with you, Steven? I have Abby and Andrea, I believe, from Trudell Consulting. Okay. Yes, hello. Abby from Trudell Consulting. Hi. Could you just say your full name so Sue can have it for the record? Yep, Andrea from Trudell Consulting. And Abby Gary from Trudell Consulting. Abby Gary, thank you very much. You could all three raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth under Penalty Berger. Yes. Yeah. And are there any, anybody recused on this? Do we bring Brian back tomorrow? Yeah, I didn't get a flavor from Brian if he was planning on rejoining. So I will send him a text message, I guess. Send him a text saying it's safe to come back. I think he implied that he was going to come back. Okay. Matt, Matt, it's John. Yep. And almost every plan you're looking at, you're looking at buildings across the street that I own, I am open to recusing myself, but don't see the need, but it's totally up to them. I'm, I don't think John needs to recuse himself. I'm okay with him being involved. Okay. And for the record, that was, that was who? Sorry, say your name for the record. Steve, Steven Savelle with Reart. Okay, great. That was Steven Savelle with Reart. Thank you, Steven. Okay. So you would be deprived of a light show in back of you, John, that has entertained us throughout the night. Okay. All right, this is a site plan application to SB2003 of Reart Company to amend a previously approved plan for Commercial Park in a vacant 4054, out of the square foot building. The project was warned as a site plan application, SB20035 in conditional use application. However, there are no elements of the proposal which require a conditional use review. So therefore a conditional use review is excluded from these staff comments. This is a site plan application. Is that correct, Marla? That's correct. Yeah. Okay. So Steven, you want to just briefly explain what you want to do with this property? Yeah, I'll give a brief background on the project and kind of how it came about. And then I'll let Abby and Angie kind of go into detail regarding the staff comments. So this building, it's 54,000 square feet approximately. It was constructed and the fit up was finished in 2012 for Green Mountain Coffee Roasters. It was their corporate headquarters office. They entered into a lease, based lease term which ended in October of 2018. As many of you know, they were bought by Keurig and then Dr. Pepper joined in. And they basically left and got out of their base lease term. So almost two years ago, in early 2018, we were lucky enough to get a request for lease proposal from GSA Services, the government, for between 50 and 55,000 square foot office space. And this actually fit the area. And they were looking to locate USCIS, Customs and Immigration Services there. We went through a long lease proposal which lasted almost a year. And luckily, we were selected as the site. Now, the requirement of that initially was 316 parking spaces to meet their need. Now, the building itself had 191 parking spaces. We subsequently, after winning the lease proposal and getting the lease signed, we subsequently got them to reduce it from 316 down to 250 spots. But they needed it to support the amount of staff they have within the building. So we temporarily got a lease amendment with them to offer an alternative location temporarily until we're able to construct this additional parking, hopefully, until August 31st of 2021. So with that being said, we were able to hopefully fit on the site plan. You'll see 59 additional spots to go from 191 to 250. And it's a requirement of their lease because of the amount of employees they have. Now, we just finished the modifications to their fit up and their lease commencement began at the end of October. And I think it's great for the city of South Brilinton. You know, they're moving from one location in Williston. I believe another location in Franklin County and they're actually creating many new jobs at this facility. It's not a point of service. It's all kind of administrative staff for USCIS. So that's how we came about to increase the parking, like I said, from the 191 to the 250. And it basically was taking up or will take up where the existing stormwater pond is and we're utilizing storage and a new treatment system underneath the parking lot is the proposal. Okay, thank you for that. So that's the background in your nutshell. This is Dawn, I have a question. Is there any chance, pardon me, that with the remote working that most people have done during COVID will permanently decrease the demand for excess or additional parking capacity? No, I mean, we've had that discussion with them. And, you know, they, until April, they're going to be at about 25% capacity. But between April and July, they see themselves getting up to full capacity within the site or within the building. Let's see, I mean, you know, who knows what'll happen with COVID. It's been an interesting year, but assuming that everything goes as planned with the vaccine. So, thanks for that. Good question, Dawn. Okay, looking at staff notes, and this is where Andrea or Abby can jump in and help Steven here. Project proposal results in 1,750 square feet of permanent class two wetland impact, approximately 10,000 under square feet of permanent class two wetland buffer impact and approximately 3,050 square feet of temporary wetland impact associated with landscaping. The applicant is proposing a 4.8 foot max height concrete block rotating wall to limit further encroachment into the wetland beyond the described above. They've indicated their narrative that the wetland delineation has been approved by the state. However, no state wetland permit has been provided, nor has the applicant provided a wetland report identifying specific wetland functions and values. It appears that the applicant has submitted state wetland permit 4122 and the applicant is now under review. Is that correct, Abby or Andrea? Yep. So we did submit a permit a little over a month ago to the state wetland program. And we did also have preliminary conversations with the wetland program prior to getting to this point and doing our design plans. So they are very aware of the project and expecting what's coming. And at this point, we don't see any issues with getting a wetland permit. Okay. To comment from the staff, since the applicant has not provided any permission to allow the board to evaluate compliance criteria, no indication of whether the state will approve the proposed impacts. We don't know what they're going to do yet, even if it seems positive. Staff because there's a premature to make a determination on the proposed impact. Staff because there's a board must receive and evaluate the wetland report and state wetland permit before making a determination on these criteria. Now, is this different because of the, of how the parking lot is going to be constructed? Sometimes do we not, Marla, make it a condition that they must get their state wetland permit before they has a condition of approval? I guess from time to time we have the standard does read that the board can't issue a permit without the state approval. Oh, you know why? Because this is a class two direct wetland impact. So if it's a buffer impact or a class three impact or a class three buffer impact, we can issue a conditional use, a conditional permit, but it's a direct impact we cannot. Okay, so what you're saying is that we can't make it a condition. We have to see it before we approve it. Yeah, so if you look at the red comment, 12.02E2, that's what I'm reading from. Oh, I see. Approaching the class two wetlands is permitted by the city only in conjunction with the issuance of a condition. I've used determination by DC and positive findings. Okay, all right, so we need that. Moving on, well, this application does represent a proposal to amend an existing business park. It also proposes to have a permanent class two wetland and wetland buffer impact, as well as temporary wetland influx as described above. The water should divide between potash and muddy brooks located on the eastern side of the property with the area proposed for development within a wetland which discharges into potash brook on a west side of community drive. It's noted pertaining to the surface water protection standards, the applicant has not demonstrated state well and standard for approval of these impacts. Well, staff does not consider deficiencies in compliance with this criteria alone. The efficiency design of the application stacks back around the board, taking into consideration this criteria and making their determination. Yeah, and I think I think here the comprehensive plan goals, you know, talk about employers needs a large amount of space, a mix of recreation resource conservation and specifically mentions right parent orders along the tributaries of money, brick and potash broke. So, you know, taking both of those things into consideration weighing wetland impacts are worth adding parking to an area where there's a lot of parking. And what we would say to that is just really that this proposed wetland impact is quite minimal to the overall wetland. I think it's important to know that this particular wetland has historically been used as storm water treatment and will continue to be used for storm water treatment. The specific area that we are encroaching on is a small finger that didn't exist under prior delineations, but over the years and after storm water treatment was installed in the area, this finger has encroached up around or wasn't impact about 1500 square feet of the wetland, which is minimal to the overall. It's a mowed wetland that has low species diversity, which is all reasons why we're not expecting too much trouble with getting a state wetland impact permit. And we would also just offer that, you know, the technology park maintains trails that are used by the community and a decent amount of open space and has protected other portions of this wetland in the past. And once again, let me just add, I mean, this is a requirement of the lease. So in order for us to get GSA there, we had to get the 250 spots. And I said it was 316 and we got it reduced to 250 on the site in order to get them there. And let me also add, this is a 10 year firm term, 15 year base term, and, you know, they'll likely be there for 25 years. So, you know, although there's parking supposedly elsewhere in technology park, you know, they won't accept that. This is a government requirement per the lease for the specific building. Steven, I would posit that you did things in their own order. You know, you could have asked for your permit before you locked in this lease that put you in kind of between a rock and a hard place. Steven, this is Delilah. They also need a zoning permit for their fit up. Wait, did I get Delilah, I'm sorry, I missed that. They do not have a zoning permit for the work that is going on inside the building. We have a building permit. That is not a zoning permit. Sometimes you need both permits. Why would we need both permits in this case if the work is only going on inside the building for the specific fit up? Steven, it's John, take it offline, do it tomorrow. I would point out that this is a mowed area. It's not really a tributary of the potash or the muddy brooks. It's simply a wet grassland and an insignificant portion of one. Being a neighbor, I can vouch for the fact that technology park as a good neighbor is a very active recreation area. And I can't imagine trying to add more recreation to that site, you know, it's very well used and traversed every day. Okay, thank you for that, John. Okay, staff comment number three. Staff considers the above considerations regarding proximity to additional parking. Taking an aggregate with the extent of what limit impact is stated by the proposed parking expansion represent too many obstacles to recommend approval of the expansion recommends the board discuss. I should have read the prologue to that. Most parking area necessitates removal of, you know what I'm saying, hold on. The original approval, SB0767, is it 1967? No. No, it's okay. Found at the top, why does it say, oh, I see, 0767, found that the power lines and related easement on the northern portion of the property made it impractical to locate the building up front. That approval also considered, this is the answer to why the parking to the front. Another, I've always wanted to know that. Another portion of the property made impractical to locate the building up front. That approval also considered the significant landscaping to Kimball Avenue and the parking lot in the finding of this criteria. Staff considers the circumstances leading to the original approval and not changed this question of the necessity of additional parking. And then we talk about the reason why you need the parking. Parking standards provide additional exemptions for parking in the rear of the properties in the mixed IC zoning district. If a lot is located in an approved subdivision where the parking on each lot, the subdivision is proposed to be located between the buildings or the buildings on each lot, the public streets, so that significant green space surrounding by buildings may be incorporated similar to a college campus style quad. In order to qualify for this exemption, the applicant must present a plan for such a quad, specifically defining its size and contents and providing a high quality design, such green space. The applicant has not done so. Actually, we've, Matt, we've seen the quad. There was a master plan that showed the quad. It's probably before your time, but it's certainly not before Mark, so I've seen the quad on this. Yeah, I've seen the quad. And I also was on the board when we approved the parking in the front and the building set back because the power line approved, you know, and the sense of landscaping by SE group for the bike path. This was a well thought out approval for the rationale of why, so. And let me add to that, that is still our intent. I mean, as John mentioned, and I appreciate that comment, John, Technology Park is private land. We spend a lot of time and effort maintaining it and allowing public use on our private land. Although the quad isn't built to the plan yet, we are in Vermont where development is a bit slow. We only have two buildings on the quad. As of right now, there is, I believe, five or six more lots to complete the quad. So on the next lot development, we will continue to make improvements and add to the quad and add to the trails that are already there. So we still plan on abiding by this, the plan that was approved. And like I said, I think, although it's not built out to the initial plan, we still have, you know, we only have two of the six or seven lots that make up the quad that are developed right now. So we still do maintain the space. We still do add trails and we still allow the public and make a green space for use with the public. So that is still our intent. I just want to note that the quad was sort of a conceptual plan rather than an approval. But that's fine. I still think it's, you know, reasonable to think about, but just keep in mind that that's nothing that the board has the authority to say thou shalt. I understood. And obviously this is for an existing lot of the quad, you know, obviously if there's future development, we can talk about how much we build out that green space with the next development of a lot, but this is already an existing one as a piece of the puzzle. Matt, can I ask a question? Sure. Steven, one thing that I would just ask is as an architect who's done design and development for GSA slash USCIS, you know, and obviously I know this might be some things you might not be able to answer, but I think it goes to our intent of trying to work with you is, is there anything in your lease with them that would affect the future development of the quad from sort of like a developmental security standpoint that I have in the USA come in? Good question. No, our 278 page lease with GSA does not. So it's a secure facility, but it's not a point of service facility. So I believe it's a level two secure area. So there is nothing that would prevent future build out of the quad now. Okay. You're lucky it wasn't a level three. Yes, I know. Having dealt with the GSA today, Steven, I can tell you that you're not lucky period. Well, you're a high quality tenant, but it was a long process and a very bureaucratic one. I'll leave it at that, but we're happy to have them in the building because finding the 54,000 square foot tenant is not easy in this area. So. Okay. Moving on to the stormwater superintendent, assistant stormwater superintendent reviewed the application, made a number of comments. Because the comments of the city stormwater section state in effect of the assistant stormwater superintendent can't complete their review without further information, staff shared the comments with the applicant as soon as they're available. Applicant is working with the assistant stormwater superintendent to address these comments. The staff anticipates they will have an update at the time of the hearing. Is that correct? Gosh, yeah, there was a lot that happened today. Yeah. We're down to just a question about groundwater. And so I think that there's some concern about the groundwater being entering the system as backflow, but it sounds like at the end of the day, this Emily, the stormwater project manager's recommendation is that the elevations are okay, but you may be treating some groundwater and that could get kind of expensive and not advisable. Andrea, did you have a chance to look at that? Did you, did you want to implement her suggestion to add a flood valve or? Yeah. And I think I will just spend a minute to talk about the stormwater system as a whole as well, just because I do think it is a benefit of the project overall. It's an initially a benefit when you're looking at overall water quality impacts to the impaired brook. And so one thing to just note is that Technology Park as a whole is part of the three-acre stormwater permitting. So what we are proposing to do with this project is bring the 124 technology site up to the three-acre regulations a little bit ahead of the ball and also bring not just our expanded impervious area up to the current regulations, but the entire impervious area at 124 Technology Park. And we are improving it from a tier three stormwater treatment option to a tier two with some surface storm filter, which is a fancy underground pre-fab chamber that has bio-filter media in it and very high pollutant removal rates. And then that will discharge to the wetland, which has been permitted as a joint attention pond and has a high level of detention for the tenure in the 100-year rain event. So it is an improved stormwater treatment facility. We'll see higher levels of pollutant removals for all of the impervious on the property, not just the new expansion. So I do just wanna note that overall. And then as far as Emily's concern goes about groundwater, we're using the same outlet from the storm filter system as the existing outlet from the shallow surface wetland that is there now. And at this point, we've had an issue with backflow into that shallow surface wetland. I don't foresee it being an issue that very seasonal high water table is at the elevation of that wetland, which is between 332 and 333 at the outlet and then slopes away towards the discharge of that dried attention pond down to 330. So it is draining generally from the outlet of the storm filter away to the discharge location of the dried attention pond. However, we will probably put that storm gate just within the last manhole to ensure that no stormwater is backflowing in the system, because that could be higher maintenance costs for the landowner. You said the word is with storm gate. Yes, it's a flap gate. It goes over the outlet pipe in the manhole basically allowing water to flow out of the pipe, but not back into it. Okay, I'm only asking really detailed questions because I have to write it as a condition. Is this, does the manhole have a name? Yes, let me find it. And I'm looking at your plans. Yep, so it would be DMH number 4A, the last one before the outlets. Am I having trouble finding this? DMH 4A, oh, because it's tiny on the plans. Okay, DMH 4A. And you can call it a flap gate. Thank you. So just to sort of summarize, it sounds like with the comments of the assistant, or the stormwater project manager are addressed. And Andrea, that is, I kind of followed that discussion, right? That was the only thing that was. I mean, I can go through them briefly. I think we had not submitted plan C401, which is the stormwater plan. So that took care of comments two and five of hers. And then we did clean up our EPSC plan, which took care of comment four. And additionally, Emily had just acknowledged that she had miscalculated our disturbance. We are under an acre, so we will not be needing a construction general permit from the States. And the erosion prevention and sediment control plan will be fairly simple. There's a good amount of drop between the existing pavement and stormwater treatment in the area. So it'll really just be leveling out the existing area and then bringing in the stormwater treatment and fell for the pavement along with the retaining wall. Okay, thank you for that. Are there any other questions for the board or staff before I ask the public if they have a comment? Okay, if there's anyone in the public that would like to make a comment about this project, please enter your name in the chat box or say your name or make your comment in the chat box. Okay, not seeing any, I'm not hearing anything. We... I am. Can you guys hear me? Yeah, what's your name? My name's Perry Schofield. I actually live in... I've been living in two of the closest residential houses to this proposed facility for the last, well, 15 years, I guess. And I ride my bike to work every day and I go by this, I've seen both these buildings go up and both the parking lots. My two questions. One is, how is this new stormwater system? Who owns the operation and maintenance of this system? He's talking about under, you know, subgrade biological systems. Who is gonna be taking care of that? I have quite a bit of experience with things like this and these things have to be taken care of. And I've seen a lot of things like this fail before. Impervious pavement systems, you know, digesters, you know, please, if you have some illustrations or anything like this and how O&M is gonna be taken care of. And then the other thing is, the parking lot above this parking lot at the other building, which has, I believe, the bank in it, offices for a bank, never seen that parking lot completely full. Is there any way that they could lease space from that one since it's right next door? Thank you, Mr. Schofield. So first question was, who owns the stormwater mitigation, the upkeep and all that? Marla, do you wanna answer that? Mr. Schofield? Sure, so the city is subject to MS4 permits, which is sort of a higher level of scrutiny than just regular state stormwater permits. We have a stormwater utility that employs one, two, two full-time and then office staff and then a few field staff as well, who do more inspections than are normally done by the state. The applicant is responsible for maintenance, but more so than a lot of other places in the state. We really keep an eye on these things. Okay, and then the second question, the second question, maybe Stephen could address, parking lot of the bank, do you own it? Can you write it to GSA? Yeah, let me add to the first one real quick, Matt. So yes, we will be responsible as the owner to maintain it and we have our own facilities management team and the unit that's proposed as a concept unit, it's been engineered for the site for the volume and an O&M recommendation comes with that, which we will follow as well. And the second point, we do not own that building. So 88 Technology Parkway was bought by New England Federal Credit Union. They now own that building and that is their parking. And although we actually broach that as a potential, they need, and although it might not be full, that is their parking to do as they wish. And GSA, the government also wanted for safety reason and security, the 250 spots on their sites on the property. Okay, I appreciate that answer, Stephen. Is there anyone else in the public that would like to make a comment? Please do so by saying your name or entering your comment or just your name into the chat box I can call in. Okay, not hearing anything, not seeing anything. It's my understanding. And I didn't hear anyone dispute it that we can't move, we can't close on this and deliberate until we get permits from the state. Is everyone in agreement that that's the case? And if so, then we have to continue this year. I wouldn't mind just discussing that for a minute, if we could. The encroachment into class two wetlands is permitted in conjunction with the issuance of a conditional use determination. So I'm not sure why we cannot have the obtaining that permit be a condition of this approval. I think we've discussed that Andrea discussed the points of the wetlands and went into some of the functions of them, we talked about the stormwater treatment system being installed in the subsurface of the parking lot and the functions and the values of this wetland were not high in Andrea's opinion. So, and I think all of those points too are in the conditional use determination. So the state makes the same, they use the same set of rules when determining if impact is acceptable or not. Okay, Marla or Jim, what do you suggest? I think I know Marla's answer. I'm not very comfortable without the information from wetlands and if they had submitted their wetlands report and allowed it to be reviewed I might feel differently, but we still don't have that. What's the timeline on getting that? I mean, they already have their wetland report done because they've already submitted it to the state. Right, I mean, all of the work's been done, the delineation is done, the application is in. We just were thinking that the permit would speak for the ability to allow this. But we are happy to provide it to the board. You're welcome to it. John, Alyssa, Dawn, Mark, am I audible? Yeah, yeah, I got you now. I mean, I don't know if we could go through but I've got it all clear from the state. Are we going to be looking through the details of the submission to the state for the permit? I'm not sure if that's what we would typically do. So I mean, I'm not sure. I mean, it's unusual to not have any information at this point and just say let's have it a condition, but I'm not sure practically whether we'd, I feel free to be corrected, but I don't know if we would change your mind if we had a permit from the state here. I would contradict them. Matt, it's John. I would agree. You know, this is flying over my head and Andrea and Abby were involved building mine in the last year. I think the only real question from my standpoint is if the state process turned up things that the city stormwater folks would have issued with we would have no ability to impose more than has already existed. On the other hand, I assume they need to get both state and city permits. And I can tell you that the city is a lot tougher than the state. So I'm not terribly worried about it. I, in my mind, the only question is, do we have the right to move forward basing this on a final application and approval by the state? I'm not ready to answer that question, but Jim. Well, so then we continue it. We wait for the state DC to act and then we hope those, the date we continue and the date we received the approval align. Is that the working theory? Because otherwise we just close and we wait, but then we don't know when the, and then we close it and then if we approve it, it would be a condition of approval that they actually have a permit. They can do what they can do. I mean, that's essentially the two choices, right? Continue this here. Can I ask one more question? Stephen, is there any reason why, I mean, were you planning to do this as winter work? No, we were hoping to start it as soon as some other nature breaks, because exactly it can't really be done in the winter with frost. So we were hoping to start this in spring, say April, May. So there's not really a kind of rush that we're anticipating, right? Other than that timeframe, no, not necessarily. Abby, when, or Andrea, when are the permits expected or when should we hear back on that? Andrea. That's a good question. I know that both the wetland department and the stormwater department are lower than they normally are right now. I would hope to see something within a month, if not by the end of January. Right, and I don't really think it's a, it's not an urgency timing thing because it does, you know, they aren't expecting to build until the spring. It's really just to, you know, save them some money and as a trip back in front of you and to free up some of your agenda time. So that's why I'm requesting the, it'd be a condition. Well, unfortunately, or unfortunately, I guess you're not far to commute to come back to our meeting. So. I know I was listening to the prior proceedings and being happy that we're remote. Never want to go back to in-person hearings again. Yeah, I've heard that before. Well, Marla, what do you recommend? If we continue it, what do you recommend? We put it, given that we're waiting on the stage. I would say February 2nd. I would say February 2nd. All right. I'm inclined, given the uncertainty. I understand your position, Abby and Steven and Andrea, but I wouldn't be inclined to continue site plan application SB20-035 for Reart company to February 2nd. Second. Perfect. Seconded by John. Call the roll. Melissa. Hi. Don. Hi. Jim. Hi. John. I. Mark. Hi. And Brian, Brian's not back, is he? No. And Matt, Chair votes aye. So 6-0-1, and we will continue the site plan application SB20-035 for February 2nd. Thanks, Abby. Thanks, Andrea. Thanks, Steven. See you back then. Thank you. Okay. Now we move on to agenda number seven, which is minutes. And I believe I only saw one section of minutes or one, no, there's three. No, three. Oh, shoot. I only read one. And I moved to approve all. All right, I have a point of order question. Oh yeah, point of order. Go ahead, Mark. Can we approve the minutes from March 2019 if only two members of the board are voting members right now that are still on the board? Yeah, Brian, Brian actually wrote a little note about that earlier. And basically they don't. I saw the email trail about that. Yeah. Apparently we don't even need to approve them. Right, you don't need to approve them. You approve them because you don't want them to be wrong. Not because it's a state requirement. Yeah, because I'm sure Matt and I really remember what happened in March of 2019. I have a particular memory of Jennifer Smith reviewing minutes that were more than a year old and saying, actually. Well, that's just to get her note from now. Look at the details though. She kept notes. Yeah. Yeah. You know what we undermarked 19. So the March 2019 minutes are based entirely on my notes from the meeting because that was one, I think that was a town meeting day. Yeah. If nothing stood out as egregious, it's probably fine. I just wanted you to read them for egregious errors. Yeah. I didn't see anything egregiously wrong. Yeah, I did it. And then we also submitted in November. November. I'm looking at it right now, scrolling. Sue did an excellent job on November 17th. Yep. And then the last one is December 3rd. Yeah. And that was the short one. Okay, so John's motion to approve the minutes. Do we have a second? A second. Okay, by Mark. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Close. Those abstaining. Okay. Minutes past six, though. And that is number eight. Any other business before we conclude? Yes. So open meeting training is due at the end of the year. Pour yourself an eggnog, medium strong, not very strong medium strong eggnog and watch a little video, please. Okay. And we have a final report. Let's do Marla. I will get back on that and look at that ASAP. Yeah, as chair, you have the ability to delegate if you so choose. All right, I'll send it all to all of you. Well, Marla, usually you do everything all I have to do is read it. So thank you for that. And that's it. That's all for the South Berlin Development Reboard meeting for Tuesday, December 15th. See you all in 2021. Everyone have a new holiday. Happy holidays, 2021. Yeah. Night. Night. Night.