 So you're the mayor? There's nothing to be afraid of. You're the mayor. You're playing the role of radio, everything you call it. Oh, so is it from the website, do you think? Or is it on eBay? It's on eBay. So it's on eBay. It's on eBay. It's on eBay. All right. It's on eBay. It doesn't put it back. Yeah. M? Sort of. Right. That's correct. Yeah. So it's part of the project. So maybe it's on eBay. Sorry. No. It's on eBay. It's on eBay. It's on eBay. It's on eBay. No, absolutely. Yeah. It's on eBay. It's on eBay. It's on eBay. It's on eBay. Stop it. No. It's on it's eBay. It's on eBay. Let's go out and see how it goes. Get comfortable. Go. So, we're about to start, so just so that people know, it's actually live on YouTube right this moment. So, it's like a five minute delay, so you can actually watch it, you know, so in other words, if there's a city councilor that's not at a city council meeting, they can actually watch the city council meeting. So, that's why I thought Megan might be calling in last night. So, this meeting is live. So, they could actually watch it live at home. That's why I thought the kids were passed over in last night. I thought it was Megan calling in last night. So, you were debating whether or not to proceed without Megan. Yeah, I thought that might be the purpose of the meeting. Sorry. I figured we're starting to do that. It was true. Okay. Should we just self-build and develop for the Reward? Okay, we're not getting the audience. Can you turn it up and try it again, then? Could you say self-build and develop for the Reward? Yeah, September 19, 2017. How's that? Try again. Self-build and develop for the Reward Tuesday, September 19, 2017. Is that good? I'm getting it on this mic up in here. You may as well go and start now. You already know where you are. Thanks very much. Emergency evacuation procedures. If there's an emergency, we'll meet right out behind us here in the south parking lot while other staff go to develop to make sure our part is okay. Do a head count out there. And that's why it's important to sign the sign-up sheet as it goes around because that will be basing our attendance count on. Item number two, additional changes or orders or deletions in the order of agenda items. Do we have any additional changes or deletions? Comments, questions from the public, not related to the agenda. Are there any comments or questions? Not related to the agenda? Hearing none. Number four, announcements. Anybody have any announcements? Hearing none. Number five, continued preliminary and final classification, SD 1718 of South Village Community, for the approval of Phase 3 of 334, a 334-unit plan unit development. Phase three consists of the following, 22 single-family dwellings for two-family dwellings, three, excuse me, two three-unit multi-family dwellings and two 12-unit multi-family dwellings at 1840 Spear Street. Applicant has requested that the board continue this to a future meeting, which is October 3rd, right? I move that we continue preliminary and final plan application, SD 1718 of South Village's communities to October 18th. Third, sorry, third. Second. Move in second. We continue this to October 3rd. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Item number six, appeal A0-1703 of Century Partners, LP and 33 Mary Street, LLC, appealing the issuance of site plan application SP 17-9 for construction of a 58,551-square-foot-four story mixed-use building, which includes 39 residential units and 146 Market Street. Ray has stepped down because this is an appeal of his issuance of that order, so he cannot be here while I read this. I will read my script. This is continued appeal. I just read that. Thank you. It is my understanding that the parties have reached an agreement and proposed findings of fact decision and order ratifying a modified site plan proposal, approval, site, modified site plan approval. The DRB's rules of procedure for appeals of the administrative officer require that those seeking interested person status as defined in state statute indicate so. Copies of this definition are available in the back of the room. You need not seek interested person status to after-student persons may appeal the board's decision. The interested persons at this time are A, the appellants, Century Partners, LP, and 33 Mary Street, LLC, represented by Mark Sperry, Esquire. I don't see him. Okay. B, the applicant, Snyder-Bravenman Development Company, LLC, represented by Robert Rushford, Esquire. C, the owner of record, South Barrington City Center, represented by Tim MacKenzie. Are there any other parties in attendance seeking interested person status? None. Okay, did that. So do we want to have a little sidebar now? You didn't get any requests? All good. Okay. Again, we have the proposed order ratifying the agreement reached between the appellant the applicant, property owner, and city as the body which approved the original site plan. It was my understanding through this signature. Ray Belair is indicating that the agreed upon site plan is in full compliance with land development regulations. Ray, is that correct? Yes. The board is being asked is it quasi-judicial appellant body to approve an order validating the agreed upon site plan, findings of fact, and decision. Do any parties or members of the public have testimony or questions? Hearing none. Thank you. Thank you. I would now invite a motion to close public hearing and approve the order as closed to public hearing, but we can't approve it now. You can't. We can't. We can do this one motion. Great. Okay. I'll invite a motion to close public hearing and approve the order as proposed. I move that we close the public hearing and approve stipulated site plan application SB1729A. Second. I'll close the hearing and approve this proposal. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Great. Thank you all very much for coming to this conclusion. Item number seven, final application, SD17-22 of Edward Hain. Hone. Hone, thank you. To subdivide a 10.29 proposal developed with a single family dwelling into three lots ranging in size from 1.01 acres to 7.98 acres at 7,800 acres which is the outcome. Yes. So if you'll raise your right hand and you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, under penalty of further. I do. Thank you very much. I'm Dean Grover with Grover Engineering. Thank you, Charlie. The project, please. The project is a proposed three lot subdivision on Dorset Street just south of Sadie Lane. This is the final review and there were only a couple of minor requests to change some of the trees to salt tolerant trees to use directional drilling when the water services were connected that the pump station be approved by the city before it's installed and the emphasis that that pump station, the sewage pump station will be a private pump station and I think we've got all of that on the plans and then there are staff comments that I could walk through or the staff could. Okay, so the. Just before you start, just a conflict issue. I don't have a direct conflict issue but I do live a quarter of a mile down the street and across the way. So I'm as long as as long as you don't have an issue. I'm happy to sit here. I'm fine with that. The staff noted that there's a slight discrepancy between the lot sizes on my plans versus the plans prepared by the surveyor that came in pretty late. We will correct those and get my adjusted numbers to meet and match the survey plans. The second staff item recommends that the lots be approved for single family use only and in talking with the client, we would request that that not be a condition of this subdivision. It's in the village in a village district where we believe they're supposed to be, you know, emphasis on clustered housing. The density allocations in this part of the city will allow certainly duplexes and even more dense growth. So our request is to not go there if we can. If I could clarify, the condition is to not allow anything other than single family without additional approval is the key. It's not that it would never be approved. It would be that the applicant would have to come before the board again. But what the client is doing is selling bare lots and would like to avoid having to go back to the DRV if possible. Just go, you know, when going for the zoning permit to decide at that point whether the future builder who we don't know might want multiple dwellings or multiple unit dwellings. Or multi-family and single family dwellings. The application hasn't been reviewed as it pertains to multi-family dwellings so there would have to be additional approval. The other option that would be on the table would be to continue the hearing and provide the additional information to represent multi-family homes. And then you can get an approval now. The third comment was to add to require four inches of topsoil during construction which we will gladly add. The fourth comment speaks to obtaining allocations for water and wastewater. And we're requesting that that be waived until a zoning permit is applied for categories with that approach. The fifth comment is a similar comment on the pump station design. We're requesting for that to be brought up during the zoning permit process and staff agrees with that approach as well. Sixth comment wants to ensure that these two buildings that are, the two new buildings will not be identical and we agree with these fairly broad requirements. And the seventh recommendation is, looks like a standard exclusion of herbicides and pesticides near wetlands and mowing of wetlands and those in the buffer areas which we agree with. So it seems like a fairly straightforward subdivision. So I have no questions. Board have questions? No, I'm good. Okay. All good. Okay. I'll entertain a motion to close. Oh, excuse me. Does the public have any comment? Hearing none. I'll entertain a motion to close. I move that we close. Final plan application SD 1722 of Edward Holm. Second. I've been moving. Secondly, close this application. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Hearing none. Okay. So I move to the next item. Sketch plan application SD 17-20 21 of JJJ South Burlington LLC to amend a previously approved 258 unit plan development in two phases. The amendment is to phase two, Sider Mill two of the project and consists of increasing the number of residential yacht residential units by 45 units to 154 units. The 154 units will consist of 70 single family lots family lots, 54, two family dwellings, and 33 multi-family dwellings at 1580 Dorset Street and 1699 Himesburg Road. Who is here for the applicant? Brian Currier, O'Leary-Berke Civil Associates. Paul O'Leary, O'Leary-Berke Civil Associates. Thank you gentlemen. It's got some application. Don't need to swear you in. We don't need to swear you in. Okay. And Marla will have a presentation. So once you step us through the plan, Marla will have some comments as well before we get into public comment. Bill, before we start, I'd like to disclose that I live in the Cider Mill neighborhood on Winesap Lane. And if the applicant views that as a conflict, I'd be willing to excuse myself. But if they don't, then I'd like to start. We have no issues with that. Okay. Other conflicts? Very good. Thank you very much, Matt. Go ahead. So this project was in front of you back in November, November 1st of last year. Since then, the six-month period to apply for preliminary has lapsed. There have been a few changes to the sketch plan since it was last in front of you. Yeah, you could go to the site plan, the overall plan. Yeah. So this is the original Cider Mill phase one. This is the proposed project, Cider Mill phase two, or we're calling it Ledgewood Estates. It's bound by Hinesburg Road to the east, Dorset Street to the west, Solar Farm to the north, and Cheese Factory Road to the south. Since it was last in front of you, we had five acres of the adjacent NADAL parcel was included in this sketch plan. We also took out a duplex unit to increase a wildlife corridor and to provide more open space. We created a loop road on the eastern end of the duplexes that was previously a cul-de-sac, and we also added in a secondary access to the single family lots through the wetland to the to the southwest. Other than that, the unit count has has dropped all those changes. I just I just noted dropped the units from 167, I believe to now we're at 154. Those are the major major changes that were in response to issues raised when we were here last. We can go with what you had to say, Mylar, if you want to go through the staff report. Well, a couple other comments before we jump in, you know, currently the Cider Mill two is approved for 109 units and has a valid Act 250 permit. So when we came back, the 109 unit approval didn't include this portion of the project up here. So that's the major change is adding these duplexes up here. As Brian had mentioned previously in the sketch plan, we were occupying five acres of the adjacent NATO piece. Since we got sketch plan approval, we haven't been able to reach agreement with NATO on that five acres. So we've now removed that from this current sketch plan application. So that's 13 units less than the sketch plan you were here with that 167 on 154. Yes, I believe so. Okay. And a couple comments that's Brian touched on it. Other sketch plan was that, you know, people are looking for a little bit bigger wildlife quarter before we had a couple duplex units right in this section of the project. So we've moved those out the parks and red committee that was looking for more green space. They commented as part of Cider Mill one. It wasn't much for green space that was approved. That was on the old regulations. So as part of Cider Mill two, you know, we have a block of green area here that can serve both developments. As Brian mentioned, we have a green area that we've developed here, along with a few other green areas that we've noted on the plan. So essentially the whole this whole portion of the project hasn't changed. The road out to Heinsberg hasn't changed. We've really just changed the multi unit configuration. Where did the the 13 Haas the home the 13 homes that aren't there that were in the previous sketch? What were they single families? They were single families that were, you know, part of the NATO parcel that we looked at before had had a road that came in that connected through. And that's why the second road got added back in because we had our second access to the NATO and there was a number of single family lots along to there. You know, there's a few other minor changes, but but mostly it's it's not including the five a tornado piece which has dropped the unit count over the previously approved sketch plan. So just helping me orient a little bit if you wouldn't mind. So that long, I guess, right of way or interior private road out to Heinsberg Road. That's that. Is there any other general access into the total development or is that it? I guess I guess you can get in from the cider mill. You get access to cider mill and then you get a second access here and then we anticipate, you know, there'll be a future access, you know, right away through the southern part of our clear parcel. Is the access in going to meet the public right away stand? Yes, it's a public road intended to be a public road. Yes. Currently, um, in Sight of Mill 2, you only allowed 50 units off a single access. So Sight of Mill 2 currently have wine sap that comes down here. And so basically they're at their their 50 units. So before any of the units in this new Sight of Mill 2 can be built or occupied, the access from Heinsberg Road has to be installed. And then so there was a phasing plan included. So this will go in first. We can do up to 50 units, and then we have to make the connection to Sight of Mill 1 in order to satisfy the two access requirement of the code. After the 50 units. I'm sorry. You can only have 51. When you go more than 50, I don't know. Is it 49 or is it 50 right? Maximum is 50. Maximum is 50. So 50 first unit would have to make the connection to Sight of Mill 1. So if we could have Marla, because that's some data background. So what I have is a little information on permit history, most of which you've covered a little bit more information on the wildlife corridor. And then the third topic is density in terms of the yes, that'd be great permit history. I think you've covered most of it. This first image is what was approved in 2007 as the master plan. The key differences are has 109 units, primarily in that northern parcel, this part of Sight of Mill 2. That's Village Residential, and that was reserved for future development. The open space areas were identified on this plan. I don't know if you can zoom in a little bit for me, Mark. So there's the western open space, the mid-site open space, northeastern open space that were reserved as part of this plan. Another thing to point out is that when Sight of Mill 1 was approved, if you go up left a little bit more, there was a few more units approved than are currently built. So keep an eye on that bend in the road on what is that road called? Yeah, right up there. So that was one. And then the other thing of note on this plan is that Sight of Mill Drive has a gap in it right above where your cursor is. Yep. Is there any intention on finishing that? Was it part of any? No, no, not unless it's future development to the east. So that's kind of one of the things I wanted to touch on today and when we get to talking about the wildlife corridor as well. So just to quickly flip through the permit history, if you go to the next sheet, that's what was presented last November, the different things that they now have the units up in the Village Residential. And there was the Nato parcel, which has since been removed. And then you flip to the next page was its current. And we're back from 167, we're down to 154, up on the left there, those units are gone. That was done specifically to accommodate the wildlife corridor. And then the other thing to note in this application is that there are four units in the middle open space and eight units in the northeastern open space. Nope, to the right, inside of Mill 2. So go down lower. Yeah. Oh, you have a pointer? Yep. Right there are some of the new guys. And right there are the other new guys. Those are partially compensating for the ones that were removed as part of the Nato parcel. So that's sort of the permit history. Just emphasize 109 units were approved with the Village Residential Reserve for future development. In 2002, the city commissioned a study to develop wildlife corridor priorities in the southeast quadrant. That led to creation of the open space plan. If you can go to the next sheet, which identifies a pretty significant wildlife corridor going through the west of Sider Mill. So you can see the red outlined area is Sider Mill 2. There's that light green area just west of it. You can see Sider Mill 1 goes through that. So that's impetus for removal of those few on the corner. Can I ask a question? Yeah, maybe from the applicant. I think I recall when these were removed, where they added into the density along here. Yes, the density originally was single family homes and we changed it to carousel home. So it was no net change in density. And then that's what Brian was referencing in terms of removing a couple homes on the northwest corner of Sider Mill 2 was in response to this wildlife corridor. The Planning Commission has in the past, we haven't been able to speak with them about this exact issue indicated an interest in creating east west connections through the city. However, the interest is not in creating high speed east west quarter quarters through the city, but more connectivity for residents, emergency vehicles and plow trucks. We may be interested in getting their pulse on further connections, but we suspect that the current connection as a low speed neighborhood connection would be what they'd be in favor of it also has even preserving the wildlife corridor. So that's what I have to say about the wildlife corridor. And then the final topic if you go to the third page is density. So there's three zones in Sider Mill 3. The north is village residential inherent density of 1.2 units per acre. However, if you preserve other spaces as not dense, which is called transfer development rights, there's the opportunity to create up to eight units per acre. In the neighborhood residential zone 1.2 inherent density opportunity. And then in the natural resource protection zone, I believe that's it, but I just went to screensaver. So let me check. Oh, and the the applicant submitted legal documents demonstrating that they have the option to purchase TDRs in support of the master plan application. So what would need to be done in order to build the eight or four to density is actually purchase those rights. Total buildable total total units they could could could put into phase two. I think you had that number somewhere in the report. It's up to 326 with 149 approved on Sider Mill one already. So it's 326 less 146 total, but Sider Mill one's pretty much built out with a approved 149. So the max would be a 77 probably. Total acreage is 161.59, I think both together. Let's both together. So we're looking for 154 by the 65. Sorry. So if there's 154 units, 65 acres, that's 2.37 units per acre average. Okay. Yeah, the number I was looking for is in paragraph C. The development has 193 units of inherent density and 646 units of maximum density. That's what I was looking for. So I apologize. I have the answer right in front of me. Go ahead. Sorry for clarification is for density purpose. Is it do the two projects? Are they combined as a single as a single body as a single as a single development for density purpose? Our eyes, yes. Pardon? Staff's eyes, yes. Sider Mill one is mostly developed by a different developer than is developing Sider Mill two. What makes this what makes this part of that land in Sider Mill two was part of the original land in Sider Mill one that wasn't developed. So it's connected. It's adjacent. And land inside ML two was being was part of Sider Mill one. So what's its all one larger development split into two pieces. Sider Mill one used some of the land in Sider Mill two for density. And the approved master plan for Sider Mill one included a portion of the land that's we're now calling Sider Mill two. All of it or a portion of it? Approximately half of it. Well, then that's what's countable. No. I mean, the master plan for Sider Mill one was amended to add the 30 acres that are now included in Sider Mill two. So the original original didn't have the full but the subsequent applications modified it. So it did. Okay. I could. I'm sorry, Marla. Are you done for the time? Yeah, could we stay with that with that with the site? Original master plan. Yeah, that that no, I'm through with that density question. I understand the answer. But I'm back to the access issue. Learning that a piece of that top road. I'm not sure what that is. That's an interior. Where is doors history on here? Because somebody help me out on the left side. All right. So you come in if you want to get in on any to any access except from the new one that you're going to build out the Hansberg Road, you have to come in from Dorset Street. You come in from Dorset Street, you come alongside a mill and then and then you got and that's that's my point. So you know how to get well, you're getting to my point. I learned from listening that you have a break in what looks like a fairly straight shot across Sider Mill One. The most direct route to Sider Mill Two would be coming straight across. If it were complete, you make a right and a left, then you're in right as it is. If it's not completed, then you're wiggling on your way through the entire Sider Mill One neighborhood, correct? Right? The staff have any planning view of that? That's that fine to have the whole Sider Mill One neighborhood work as basically through streets for Sider Mill Two. The way it was approved and to clarify one of the points and that was a great overview. Thank you, Marla. But one of the points that you made is that it preserves the Wildlife Act. Having that connection on summer field rather than connecting Sider Mill straight through preserves the wildlife corridor. Is that what you were you were saying? Yeah, it helps to preserve the wildlife corridor, but wildlife certainly has to. Yeah. Yeah, but that's intended on connecting. That's on the main city street grid to connect eventually all the way out to Hinesburg, I believe. Right, when that development takes place. Right, so it's not really designed as an open wildlife corridor while it does for the time being. If I recall, that's actually a gravel dirt path that goes down to that, correct? No, it the pavement, it ends pretty much right here and that pick right that you look down at it. It's it's roughed in as a road. It's not like it's a road. No, no, no, no. It's not roughed in. It's pretty much natural. A little roughed in. So the one thing that would help me is to know where summer field, which one was the summer field? This is a summer field I have. I thought I thought that was referred to as Winesap over here. Winesap is is here. Gotcha. Okay, so the the one that goes down to the Nettle Crest and so on. Is summer field very good? Certainly, you know, some of the purposes of, you know, all the connections is to discourage, you know, cross traffic through the neighborhood. You know, we want to make it as, you know, as tough as we can, you know, that we don't want people trying to go from, you know, Dorsen Street over to Hinesburg. Yeah, I mean, I'll speak to someone who lives on the wrong side of the tracks as in the Hinesburg side, I'd love more east west connectors, but I would not look at this as a thoroughfare to get over to Dorset. I'd go to cheese factory, because it's a straight run. I don't I see this more as neighborhood interconnectivity, not a shortcut from Hinesburg to Dorset. And, you know, I think the reality of the way this thing matters, I do have an opinion that I do I would prefer to see the little connectorship connected rather than wait for a future development. But again, it's not part of the original proposal. I want to hear the board of the neighbors, the applicant, but to me that just I almost think that, you know, for the people that are living in the two neighborhoods to go from one to the other, you know, I'd rather see that because I still don't think people from Dorset or Hinesburg would use it if that was connected. Just as a minor point, offsite mitigation can be an element of a development, but that connection is not part of the current development area. What do you mean? The part of the current development area, the area that cider mill to is the sort of C shaped parcel to the southeast of the page that we're looking at now. But ultimately, Marla, it's one project, so we can it's it's really not offsite. I think Frank was getting to that when he was asking if they're using land for development density and, you know, are they sort of interconnected from an approval standpoint now that we're opening up phase two for sketch plan. Would you identify yourself? Brad, I'm one of the principles in JJJ. So board questions on this sketch plan now. Mark, can we go to the plan that they're actually proposing? This is the old plan, right? Right. You want the overall? Do you want me to zoom in on a certain part of it? Go ahead and ask a question. Well, I have a question required. So I see that I'm going to zoom in a little bit, but the open space calculations. What I know that you need certain amount of percentage of open space, but then there's also certain amount of developed parkland space. What is your plan for the park, the developed park, open space, not just wetlands, which is going to be restricted and protected? Yep. So we did a usable calculation on this bottom left corner here. Doesn't take into account general undeveloped space, meaning the wetlands, the buffers. This calculation takes into account what we consider usable open space. No, I understand that. And I'm looking for more of the structured open space for rec use for the neighborhood. I think the intention of that space is that it be, you know, basically maintain its lawn and be suitable to, you know, throw a Frisbee, you know, throw a baseball, you know, something along that. There's a few spaces that are designated as a garden space. Can you identify the spaces that you think are going to be big enough to actually be used by the neighborhood? There's one here. One here. There's a community garden space we're designating here. That'll be the only thing that's not just, you know, field. There's a small park up here. And then this is the small open space that it's being allowed next to the wildlife corridor there. We met with parks and recreation prior to the original, you know, sketch plan. We discussed just, you know, what they'd like to see with those spaces, you know, playground equipment, open space, and basically general consensus was that they'd like to see just a maintained mode area, lawn area that people could get out and, you know, flyer kite or Frisbee or do whatever. They're obviously not large spaces. We're not going to put a soccer field out there, but there's enough space so people can get out there and use them. No, I know. And but I want to make sure that, you know, last year you met the last one have happened because it's obviously just my opinion, but that the open space is sort of backs up to someone's the whole series of backyards. And it suddenly becomes feeling like you're hanging on someone's backyard rather than an area that's identified as a neighborhood park, which typically is bordered by sidewalks, you know, little pathways or something that delineates it from, from someone's actual property. Yes. And, you know, we had other open space that we talked about designating, but it was exactly like you said, like there's fairly large open space here, but it would certainly feel like you're in the backyards of those condominium units. So we, we didn't include that as, you know, some of the designated open space. So a space like that is big enough that you could probably do like walking paths on either side of it so that, you know, it feels like more it's like a central courtyard for all of those units and someone that could use it wouldn't feel like they're in someone's backyard, especially if it's a condo, not a single family, you know, make it more of a communal central backyard, you know, for that whole section of housing. Have you been to parks and recreation with this site plan or only the earlier one? Do you intend to go back for this one? We intend to go back prior to preliminary because we'd like to discuss with them some of the some of the trail connections, you know, to the town on Scott parcel down here and and potentially, you know, to an existing pedestrian easement that's off off the end of the cul-de-sac there. The staff had some comments about, you know, just how we were going to use some of those easements. And so we'd like to have that discussion with Parks and Rec to see Doesn't Parks and Rec forgive my lack of precision on this? Parks and Rec have some kind of rule of thumb or standard for access to an actual park area, distance to an actual park currently? I don't know. I can't answer that. The existing Stone Farm Road, is that staying in place? That's going to be restored. So that would that would encourage the the the nature area there. So the path through. Okay, good. And which road is that, John? So in the northwest undeveloped space? Yep. You'll see there's a north south dash road that goes all the way through that. There was a lot of ledges that came out of Cytomil-1 and John Belter at that point in time was farming all these fields in here. And you know, in the spring when it was wet, you know, as it was partially a Class III wetland, he had probably getting access to and so he asked the Cytomil-1 developers if they could approve the access so they play stone. Someone was in the wetland, someone was in the wetland buffer to give him access so that he could continue to, you know, plant corn. So when we came to develop Cytomil-2 and honestly, we had the folks from the state out there on the wetland folks, they were a little excited about the fact that the stone had been placed in the wetland. So part of our our wetland permit is that we need to remove all that stone and restore that area where that road was installed. Excited. Good term. Other questions? Go ahead, Matt. During the last sketch, it was in November last year, there was a discussion about the property immediately to the east and having some sort of mounds or shading or do you remember that discussion and talking about the really property? Is that changed any with the with the from the last sketch to this one? Yes, so this is the houses to the property line. I think there was a concern. There's a hedge right here, right, right before the property line. And there was a slope easement on the plans. And what we did to counter that shifted NATO crest as far to the south as we possibly could to avoid the hedges. There's also another another hedge here that's within our right away that is unfortunately unable to be saved. But we think we because we could to save save the other one. So we do have two letters from concerned citizens. One is from Karen Cubino at 70 Wine Sap Lane in South Barrington. And it's quite a long email, but it'll be included in the record, right? Okay. And her first proposal is that you do extend Cytermill Road from Dorset all the way to Summerfield Avenue before permitting for the development. Second proposal is build a left hand turn lane. That's a southbound turn right, obviously, from Dorset Street to Cytermill Road. Third proposal is build a continuous 10 foot wide rec path to connect Cytermill 1 and 2. I see rec path on here on the very eastern side of that road there. So I'm assuming that it is your intent to do what is asked to build a continuous or my wrong. Or you just can use the sidewalks. Right now the plan is to build the rec path along NATO Crest Drive. That's how it was proposed and approved in the original project. Right now we don't have a plan to continue the rec path all the way through on the Summerfield. But that's something we can talk to the Parks and Rec Committee when we inherently meet with them. So does anyone know? I mean, my wife and I walk down there all the time and sidewalks are fine for us. Does anyone have a problem with sidewalks as opposed to a rec path? Is the sidewalk connected? You're from the Parks and Rec Committee. Yeah, so please tell us. Primarily, we just want to see the connection, you know, so I'm sorry, James and good ones by committee. So our goal is the connected community. We want the connections put in there. So be able to handle the bike traffic. Hinesburg Road not ideal for commuters, but some people are brave. Let's put the connection in. So I would say an actual right path myself. So I would tend to agree with that. You know, when you're when you're walking down a sidewalk and you're and you're going from driveway to driveway to driveway. I don't think it I don't think it gives you as consistent a structure as as a rec path does and and for a bicycle or anything. Um, so the current rec path, you know, comes down to the top here and it runs alongside the mill and it runs down here. So there are no, you know, there are no recreation paths, you know, that come down, you know, wine sap or summer fields. I mean, there is, we have this section coming in, but there's really, you know, there's really nothing to connect to connectivity in the south. You couldn't connect. You know, there's the wildlife, you know, corridor, you'd have to get across. And I think the point is, I think that was part of the reason why I think the original plans, you know, didn't show, you know, a path connection through. I think the point is at some point, I expect everybody will like to have something on the Heinzberg roadside to this is our opportunity to connect. That that that'd be my take. I mean, you get over to the Heinzberg roadside and there is no place to go, obviously, but that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be. Well, there are some planned connections when you look on your right, when you look on your trail path and they're not through, you know, this parcel, you know, the plan connection is, is further up along, you know, Siden Mill that comes through the Siden Mill Drive extension. And then there's I think another proposed connection up through Dorset Park. Of course, the, the, the comparison is going, going up and over the golf course, you come down into Butler Farm. And then you are only on sidewalks or in the street. And as somebody who uses that, I'm in the street. Yeah, you're in the street. Top, I'm looking at the thing and topographically, is there an obstacle to, I don't see a, well, excuse me, I don't see a discussion and a letter about where to build a 10 foot wide recreation path. Am I missing something here? That was just a naked request. Topographically and hypothetically, where would you do it? Sorry, they have one that is on the plan here. A 10 foot walk all the way through? No, no, no, all we have is, is through here. What I'm saying is to, to, to, to, there's one at the bottom of this cul-de-sac, right? No, there's just an easement there. There's no, it calls you a sidewalk and there's nothing to connect to here. You can't, the only closest place your plan shows here, excuse me, your plan says 10 foot wide pedestrian path. Oh, I'm sorry, it's a, it's an easement. Miss the easement. Yeah. So where is the easement? Sure. There's an existing easement, so I know one has, that comes off the end of the cul-de-sac. And goes to where? Runs how far? It runs to this corner of the property right here. What's the intention of that easement to run to a corner and then die? Well, it does. Point of giving that easement to that. I think it was just an easement to get to Jewett. I think, I think one way to answer Jewett. No, let me ask you this question. This line right here. This line right here. Is that a setback or is that another easement? Because I see it goes to there, but then it's not around here. You know, is this an easement or a setback line? I'm not sure what that is to be honest with you. Because I mean, it's connecting. It goes all the way over to here, which is the rec path that connects along here. It looks like it's graphically, it looks to me like it's meant to be another rec path easement. It says sideline of easement in the key. It says sideline of easement in the key. Are the legend? Sideline of easement. But for what? Yeah, we're not sure if that was a sewer easement or I mean, given the fact that this line right here, this is your line of the rec path. This is the line of your rec path. You know, I'd like to know a little more of the history behind this line right here, whether this not the same we could ever get, you know, a rec path across this big wetland open space border, but you know, at least know what exactly the intention of that was and whether Unfortunately, we didn't bring a copy of the plat with us. I'm sure it's filed and I'm sure it's labeled as to what it was is the is the eastern side proposed 10 foot wide pedestrian path easement. The eastern side of it in in two is that is that buildable or is that too wet? This section here? Yeah. No, above that, right? Start there and go to your right and up and down. No, no, no. Sorry. I'm going to roll down a little bit, Mark. Oh, the easement that we show that comes through. It's a it is it is buildable with the permits. It's outside the wetland, but it is in the buffer area. So you have to go to the only way it's continuous wetland through there. So we wanted to we wanted to provide an easement. That was one of the things we talked with the Parks and Recreation Committee as to, you know, the best place to go across because they're, you know, they're anxious to get across to, you know, the Scott parcel that the city owns. So what we had mapped the wetlands and we tried to, you know, snake it between the wetlands the best we could. Now, I'll have to study it a little better. I have a question on a different topic. I'm maybe the only one interested in this topic. You show bunches of little lots. What do you plan to do with all those little lots? Are you referring to these? Referring to the individualized lots that use the numbered individualized lots that you're planning to sell them as two individuals? We're not you're gonna build not gonna rule that out. Or, you know, do civets, you know, typically are their builders and they typically build all their own homes market and build them. All right. Not to say that we wouldn't sell individual lots or sell a block of lots to another. Well, once you have, once you have a house built, would you sell it on one of these lots and say here, this lot and the house is yours? Yes, that's the intention. That's the intention of the single family section. Just like it to be aware of what has been a dispute for the last year with an award and will continue to be until it's resolved. At least one member of the board believes that you must observe a five foot sideline setback and that that's non wavable under the current land development regulations. Absolutely non wavable. Right. I don't mean to interrupt you. Are you talking about the phase two single family lots? Are you talking about up here? It really doesn't matter under the existing under the existing LDR, whether they're single family or whether they're duplexes or whether they're triplexes. If you, for example, if you're selling with party walls and individual lots, same rule as if it's a single family house, essentially the existing LDRs. So you're aware of the dispute. I'm not telling you that you won't get a permit. I'm telling you if you read the LDRs, you will see if you read it carefully that you're not permitted to separate, you know, to sell a lot that does not have a five foot sideline setback and that this body has no authority to disregard those little lines you're in there that you're selling as lots, nor does it have the authority to waive the five foot sideline setback unless and till the LDRs are amended, which I've been attempting to get somebody to pay attention to all year long. And really, since for for about a year, I make the note you can do with it what you wish. Thank you very much. There's also a letter from the owner of the property to the east of the project. Ted really unable to attend the meeting. At a previous meeting, I asked if the developer would provide a berm between our properties and the time they acknowledged by head nodding. I hope that for the record, they would confirm this at the meeting and if for some valid reason not able to do this on their property, would they be willing to create the berm on our backline? That's the winner. Yep, that's that's his parcel right here. What he's referring to is these units right here. I believe he asked for a berm right up against here. We acknowledge that there's a wetland in between, you know, the end of this loop road and his parcel. We don't show any grading on the project as shown right now. That's definitely something we could consider at this high level. But you couldn't build a berm on the wetland. You'd have put it on his property. We cannot build it on. We cannot build it on our property because of the wetland. Could build on I mean, a berm could be built on his property built on his property, you know, provided, you know that he obtained the necessary permits. So someone would have to would look at the back of his property and make sure it wasn't wetland or make sure there wasn't any other issues where we don't only want to include it as part of our plan because at the state level, then it becomes involved land and and his property could be included under our act to fit the permit, which is something that we don't want. And I'm sure he wouldn't want that, but we are willing to to work with the neighbor provided he gets the permits to build a berm on his property. Thank you very much for going on record to that extent. Let's see. So do we want to go back to so there's two proposals on the letter from Karen Cubino. Do you want to address those extend Cytomil Road from Dorset to Summerfield Avenue and build a left turn lane from Dorset to Cytomil. Southbound obviously. We're certainly not proposing to extend Cytomil at at this point in time. So that would be this section. You know, would you understand the logic that I understand the log is logic, but we're adding impervious surface. We're definitely doing some, you know, additional damage to that wildlife quarter. It's going to go right through the middle of the wildlife quarter shown on your plans. So at this point in time, you know, whether there's going to be future development off the yeast, I don't know when that may or may not occur. So that is not something we'd entertain. The left turn lane at the entrance to Cytomil Drive is something that's already a requirement of Cytomil ones active 50 permit and at which time there's enough traffic there. So it triggers the need for the left turn land than they were required to construct that. Unit count to that. They do a traffic count. I think every five years they have to go back and count and do to do another count. Likely this year and next because they're pretty close to being built out. So we did a count before they started Summerfield and they were and they were about 80%. You know, they're convening the left turn lanes and you're obviously going to do a traffic study as part of this. I'm a little confused. Are you have you succeed? Are you the developers? The quote developer? Have you succeeded to the privileges and obligations of the permit for Cytomil one? No, we have not. The permit holder of Cytomil one is still obligated to build that left turn lane. It's a requirement of active 50 permit and therefore your your view is your hands off. Is that correct? We expect that he's going to trigger that need and so he will be built unless until he does not your concern in your view. What triggers the left hand turn lane? They have to do a traffic count and at which you know, there's a there's a certain threshold with which you need a left turn lane. When they did the original Cytomil one, it was predicted by the traffic engineer that they would generate enough traffic to require a left turn lane. And so the condition at least the active 15 condition. I don't know what the South Burlington condition was was that they had to do a traffic count every two to three years and at which time there was enough left turning traffic to warrant the left turn lane and they were required to install it. So that's still a valid condition of the active 50 permit for Cytomil one. Well, one construction. I'm sorry. I just want to ask traffic account was done. I think it was done about two years ago. One construction of Cytomil two almost inevitably trigger that increased traffic. It will at some point in time. Initially, it won't because we won't be connecting to Cytomil one because we because until we do 51 units and the second you do that, you will probably have triggered it. Correct. We expect by the time we do that, Cytomil one will have triggered it. Could I go back to the connection between Summerfield and Cytomil lane and clarification from Ray or Marla? So if if a developer chose to build just north of the solar farm to the east, they would be responsible. It would be required to make that connection to pay for that connection and build that connection out. Is that correct? I believe so. We did review the decision for Cytomil one, the original, and there was no specific trigger requiring the developer of Cytomil one to construct the road. They did provide the easement, which is shown on the plan. So presumably the developer of the adjacent property would be required to connect to Cytomil and have to extend the street. Right. So the purpose of the bulb out during the original approval of Cytomil one or the the way it's configured now is to allow for a possible connection but not require it of any future developer or the current available in the event that there is development. Okay. Thank you. Cytomil was an odd approval in my opinion because, you know, A, it's it's got one means of ingress and egress for well over 50 units, but it's that little connector between, you know, that's sort of about the pedestrian easement or the pedestrian path, which is meant to support emergency vehicles if need be. And normally our standards have been we don't break up a road that's meant for a future connection. You got to build it to the property line. So, you know, there's two things that go against what we normally would do. And I've been on the board long enough to say this was prior to my time on the board, you know, that a didn't have two means of egress. You know, it had the odd one, which was a pedestrian path, which said, emergency vehicles can use it and didn't connect the road to the for future development to the east. So I'm still, you know, obviously if we have our hands are tied, you know, that's one thing, but I personally would rather see that connection because I think it adds for better, you know, connectivity through the neighborhood as well. We are looking at this as a whole, aren't we? I mean, it is one project as far as there's been a permit in place and we're expanding on the same permit, correct? Yes, but the developer of phase, Sonoma one is not is not part of this application. They did not sign the application. So the board's authority, I believe, is only with the sudden mill to is it or is it not an add-on to the original? Then then shouldn't they go back and get the signature of the developers? I don't know one or or should we not be or should we not care about? I think we're going to need a I need a legal opinion because I think I think I think I think we're looking at this is I think we're looking at it wrong unless we're looking at we're not looking at an eight or nine unit development that's skirting under Act 250 here we're looking at 154 units that's the first east-west connector between, you know, in the city for quite a while and it's tacking adding on and was originally part of a major development and it's another major development. I agree. I think, you know, by saying one is isolated and the other one's isolated yet we're using the land from both of them and looking at them as one project. I'd like to get I think we do need to get a little more exploration get a legal opinion as to whether or not they are looked at as two separate projects or if it's one as a whole. Okay board other questions comments. Wildlife corridor. I think we should give the rec path to any more connectivity rather than just from 116 to the corner of, you know, here and here whether we'd like to see it do some more connection or at least explore it a little further. I'm I personally am not real one way or another on it. I'd rather hear more board opinion because you know in this neighborhood from what I've seen in my neighborhood most people you see is the street. So, but like I said and get rec paths opinion, neighbors opinion. For the moment we can defer to the rec path folks but I've already made my opinion. Yeah, there's a way to connect on the south or the north end that I don't know how to do it. It would be important. I don't like seeing bikes on the streets. If you got a rec path for the bike, it'd be preferred. Matt, if you can mark, sorry, you can go to the last page of the packet that shows the city's plan for rec paths in this area. I didn't read again. I talked about before, you know, the green of the paths. So, you know, the future plan basically shows an extension of Cytomil, you know, connecting to the Hinesburg and then another extension. I don't know if this is a dorset park, but to connect, you know, and then they, you know, basically show this piece that comes in through but don't, you know, don't show any connection over to Cytomil 1. The straight shot green line is the proposed rec path line type and it's intended to represent a schematic connect Hinesburg Road to Cytomil 1 the means of that connection doesn't follow a road because Cytomil 2 wasn't proposed at the time that this concept was made so there was no way to trace a road or a route to get to there. The goal of this came out is just to get to the end of Summerfield rather than connect to the trail further to the west. I see. But it could fairly easily follow Aurora Road in some way, shape or form. Maybe pass that stormwater pond be and there's lots of choices. I think I think we should send it back to the rec path committee. Bikes and rec. Okay, how strongly this is going to be a really big topic. How strongly do we feel that we can accept the assertion that we that there will be no connection of Cytomil Road to Somerville? Because that's a big that's a big safety issue. I think that's what we were asking if you're tied together. Okay, the lawyer says we have no steering. Yep. Very good. All right. Thank you. Other questions, comments from the board before we open up to the public. Okay, members of the public and please identify yourself and again please make sure you have signed the sign up sheet. Please identify yourself. Oh, there you go. Good. That certainly is a very valued consideration that you want to slow down traffic. You don't want to create a superhighway. I totally get that and understand it. One of the concerns I have though with regard to extending Cytomil Road, which is probably my primary concern, as you're aware Cytomil 1 did not fall under the regulations to create parks and places where kids could shoot baskets or play. And so down the streets of Wine Sad, Royal, Crispin, the streets that people trinkle on down to to get to Summerfield, which is still under development right now. We currently have basketball hoops at the bottom of many, many driveways and our kids are playing in the road, which is where they have to play. In addition, they're riding their bikes up and down the road because, as you've already mentioned, we don't have a rec path that connects through Cytomil 1 directly to Cytomil 2. Our rec path stops right at the end of Cytomil Road. And right at the end of Cytomil Road, there is no rec path. We have sidewalks. Well, the sidewalks are pretty narrow for kids riding bikes. So they're riding in the road, which should be expected. So the extension of a bike path, a 10 foot rec path, is certainly desirable. But my number one concern is the extension of Cytomil Road for children's safety. We currently, right now, we have loaded dump trucks, zipping down Wine Sad Lane, which is the street that I live on. And so far, nobody's been injured. I'm very thankful for that. But it's always something that's a concern. Constant traffic for construction, as well as the people who live in the summer field. They also have to go ahead and go up Wine Sad, Royal or Crispin to get to Cytomil Road. So it's really a traffic safety consideration to create that Cytomil Road extension. We don't have any parks or anything. So the road is pretty much the place where we play. And you understand that it's an issue of, but we need a legal opinion that's going to tell us whether these are one development. That's a value of consideration. And certainly slowing down traffic is valuable. But we also have to consider safety, because we have no parks in Cytomil 1 or anything. We have so many families on all of our streets. That's definitely important, too. Thank you for allowing me to speak and considering my opinions. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, so we'll go there. And then we'll go there. Please don't define yourself. If there's anything else, may I approach the mat? Sure. Because I think it's important that you have input from people that actually know what it looks like and what's happening there. Especially as we talk about this wildlife corridor. Because what it looks like in a sketch drawing isn't what necessarily is out there. And just for, I live right there and I'm amazed by the wildlife. But it is not over here. It's really important that you understand that these are the houses. But that's not the cultivated area. The cultivated area goes way back. There's lawns behind there. And then what's down in here is wet. So the wildlife, the coyotes that I hear, they're over here. The kildere are over here. The bobbling are over here. Now this is useful and it'll eventually grow up. But right now it's an open field. Lawn's going down into it and a wetland. So there's going to be a real narrowing when this occurs. I'm also here representing three other neighbors who live there and here. We submitted a letter in October. I would like to be submitted because although we appreciate moving these units back a little bit, it's still pinching this wildlife corridor too much. It's really important when you look at the quality of a wildlife corridor that you look at the canopy. There's no canopy here. There's shrub barely. There's a lot of really good trees that are coming out here. It's really important in a wildlife corridor that you look at wetlands. If you look at the open area here, it's almost all wetlands. There's miniscule little parks here and there in the area that's good. But they're so small. I'm not sure the frisbee thing would work. They're not of a nature that allows them to connect for wildlife purposes. Parks also are not useful for wildlife. So it's important that we address the bike path and the risk. But we also, it's really important that you look at the natural resources. I haven't heard anybody talk about consulting with the Natural Resources Committee tonight. I find that very concerning because, again, this looks great. But if you look at what's really there, that's not really functioning. This is where the animals are. And they're going to be really impacted by this. And, frankly, between all the, at this point, the sprawl of this between all the buildings and what left over being wet, that's really of a very big concern. Also, I don't know if it'll be helpful, but I brought satellite maps. One of the signers to this letter flew over the other day and said, if you look at the corridor that goes down from Willard Park, which is amazing, all the way down to Shelburne Park, which is really amazing, the only pinch-off point is right in here. And I'm sure this was all put through before major master planning and comprehensive planning and probably wouldn't go through like this today. And I hate to say that because I love living there, but I understand that you're now dealing with, you know, decisions that were made in the past, but you still have a lot of opportunity to, to minimize the impact. So, number one, it's really important that this go to the Natural Resources Committee, where there's far more expert people than I about wildlife quarters. I've just been an observer of wildlife. I was really impressed with the open space plan, which talks about the importance of open space, which are not necessarily parks. I'm not anti-park, and I am a bike rider, so I love all these things you're talking about. But that's not the same thing as Natural Resources or open space. So I would also please ask you to do that. And I also just, another thing I was very impressed with when we lived here was the comprehensive plan for the city. And I just want to end on that just reading the ultimate, the development and ultimate land use pattern in the Southeast Quadrant, a South World intent is a critical importance to the future, creating a balance between housing, complementary land uses and conservation, especially conservation of key natural communities and habitat features will happen through continuous planning, public involvement, and faulty use, blah, blah, blah. So I just would really encourage you folks to make sure that the Natural Resources end of this is really looked at because I'm quite concerned that unfortunately what's left isn't necessarily right open space for people or for animals. So we need another view to come before you guys for consideration on that. Before you sit down, may I ask you a question? As to the wildlife corridor, does the connective road have any impact? Assuming that connective road is built, the one that connects to, you know, Sider Mill 2 to the existing development to your street. Well, I mean these over, but the original road was much more zigzag, which would have been much better. Making this a direct connection, not putting, I didn't hear anybody talking about traffic features. Up to this point, everybody's been talking about traffic features. So a big connector road is used by a lot of cars will definitely negatively impact. Having a road per se won't necessarily, having a rec path won't necessarily, but if that becomes a major road and is used as even if it's not people cutting through, even if it's just this number of units, which I think is too many, but even if it's just that number of units cutting through, that will definitely be that for the wildlife. But I understand you want connectivity. I mean, you're balancing all this stuff, but the more zigzags you can put in there, the fewer houses that are going that way or going that way, the better it'll be. I don't think that this is a whole lot different one way or the other. Because again, once you add in the once you add in the lawns that are behind all that in mode, the other problem here is that this is all solar panels, which is nice as an open space thing, but they mow it. They mow it aggressively. It's like a lawn. So those start about here. So you should at least keep the, you know, avoid the pinching down. And hopefully as this grows up, a few animals might start to build through there, but there is absolutely no cover for them in there right now. I'm not a wildlife corridor expert, but I would really encourage you to consult with your National Resources Committee, because I think this is really important to the whole city, not just to Sider Mill one and two. I think it's a, the rec-pads in there are amazing and the wildlife is part of it. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is it going by yourself? Jack you're on. I live on Wineside. I'm concerned about that little piece of Sider Mill road that in my eyes should be constructed as part of this harness process. And I understand you're taking that into account, but the one thing that doesn't really show on the map is it's a fairly good sized hill. The kids are in it a lot. So if they play in their driveway to the ball and the ball gets away when it goes into the road, we're already starting to have problems with people speeding on the road, especially on, is it a braver that goes up around the corner? The curve is supposed to slow boats down? No. If anything, it's speeding them up. I think they realize that it takes them so long to get from their house to Dorset Street. And that's a, there's no houses along that curve. So they just throttle it and go around the curve and they're pushing kind of the limits of their car, so to speak, with the conditions of the road. I guess if you're not looking for a lot of people to go through the Eastern connection, I would think that along that road, you would need to install speed bumps at a minimum, at this point, because they're trying to go from point A to point B as fast as they can. I'm not asking that pop setup. I just think that if you're looking for a quieter road, you're gonna have to do something along that nature. And to totally go up through WineSat versus going across where you're interfering with nobody, I just think that that's unreasonable that you need to make that connection. We've got a legal opinion. I appreciate your time. Yeah, thank you. Yes, please, Mike. I don't think you'd disagree. Please identify yourself? Because... Please identify yourself? Yes, William Wolffrey. Just a minute, I have a black day ahead of you. Article nine of the LDR, it states that the intention of street design criteria is to provide a system of attractive pedestrian-oriented streets that encourage slower speeds and contribute to the neighborhood, what, the mobility. So Mark has jumped in and wants to extend cider mill right through. And these people that live on WineSat wanna do it, might understand why, because they're afraid that cars are gonna come down with WineSat and up and around. But the whole idea of, and the developer here has said it earlier, the idea is to slow things down so you don't create an east-west corridor that goes through, that's coming through the development. I mean, that's pretty convoluted to get through there. So I don't think, unless you live in the development, it's gonna be the odd person that's gonna come through. But if you extend cider mill straight through, all of a sudden the shot's coming pretty easy to come in and through. And the people on summer development still, they're gonna get more traffic going faster. So WineSat, maybe you win, but you double down on summer development. We all got a kind of... And you live where? I live on the Royal. So you're unaffected by anything, so... No, I'm not unaffected by it. I live on the corner of the Royal inside of the mill. So, you know, I don't wanna see. Right now, you talk about the cars going fast up there. You see them going along the cider mill and the trucks as well. Now you create it straight through. But then you got to have just Rocketman all the way along, but we don't have a Rocketman, he's in North Korea. Yeah, that's cool. Okay, so many Rocketman is going through there. So, you know, there's pros and cons to this, but by your own... But the stated objectives of the city of Bromenden is to try to not have these boulevards going through, but to slow it down and move it through the development. Anyway, I think I made my point. Thank you very much. Please identify yourselves. Denise, don't speak, I live on the Royal. And I guess I was the first house on the Royal, and since they built all these houses, the traffic has increased a lot on cider mill drives. So, that really concerns me. And the other part that concerns me are 33-unit multi-family dwellings. I also ride my bike a lot. And once you get that, that means 90 families, I guess, there, is that correct? Yeah. So, once you get that, people start parking in the street. You can't ride your bike with all the cars parked in the street. I just feel that the density there is way out of line with the neighborhood. And 90 families, just in that part, not counting the two family dwellings, and the 70 single family dwellings, all those cars are going to be going up, well, sometimes they go up my street, but there'll still be a cider mill. That's going to be, getting out on the dorset is going to be a problem. That's why there's traffic still. That's exactly why. No, I know, but I'm just saying, there's way too many people for that neighborhood, for my neighborhood to handle, especially with people parking in the street. And if you say there's no bike route, there's no place to go. Yeah, I'm sure that the developers won't do parking plans as they go through their process. That doesn't prohibit anybody from parking in the street, and therefore, how do you ride your bike there? But just count 90 families, plus 54 times two families and 70 families, that's a lot of families. Both families have at least two cars. 300. I think it'll have about 300 more cars. I don't think that cider mill can handle that. So, I would say send it all around its word, but I don't think it should come through cider mill. Thank you very much. Please identify yourself. I'm Laura D. Moroney. I live on Dorset Street. I'm at Little House in the top left corner that you can see. So we look out where the bike path comes out onto cider mill drive, and the speed of the traffic that goes down cider mill road right through there makes us so afraid of people crossing from the bike path where it crosses there as it continues on. That's one of our really big concerns about the increase in traffic is the safety of people, because if you look at around the opposite side of Dorset Street, if you look at Nolan Farms that cuts all the way through, that might be toasted at 25 miles an hour, but there's no way the majority of cars are going even close to that. And the same thing could happen and will happen because right now the traffic is not, as a limit, it's not enforced. There's nothing to slow it down, and it's very, very dangerous. We hear the squealing of tires. We see the cars going by. So I totally agree that anything that can slow down traffic, even right down to the force in the traffic limit, should be done. That's one thing I want to say. Another question about this road that was put at the bottom of, so it's going to be put at the bottom of Somerville that goes through the wetlands. Like at the bottom of that cul-de-sac. Is that? The easement. The easement with the idea that there could be a road that goes through there. And I just always have a question. If something is designated as a protected wetlands, how can it then be allowed to be developed? Go. So there's a state wetland permitting program, and if the wetland program deems that the roadway creates an acceptable burden, either the wetland is low value or there's offsite mitigation provided, perhaps they're creating a wetland elsewhere. And I'm speaking as someone knowledgeable about the state process, not as any representative of the city in this respect, but if the state can decide that a wetland impact is acceptable, if there's sufficient circumstances or mitigation provided to offset the impacts. So it goes to the state. That's correct, yeah. What's the city review process? Yeah, there is a city review process as well. But I think the more. Which has investment as a state. Yeah. What's that? Which helps a lot. The state would probably have a more rigorous review criteria in this case. The state would. Thank you very much. Okay, so we'll go one, two, three, Tim. Please identify yourself. I'm John Julie. We live just in the south of Sunfield property to which the right-of-way goes, the brand referred to. And that right-of-way brand does not go through wetland. It does not impact even the buffer to a wetland. It goes between wetlands. So that isn't a problem. But while I'm on my feet, let me add my support to the speaker who talked about the wildlife quarter. The wildlife quarter has been known to be where she pointed out, ever since the Arrowwood study, that it has been ignored and pretended that it goes in the middle of that cavity between Summerfield Road and the adjacent one to the left. It has never been the wildlife quarter. It has always come off the back of the previous Scott property, Belle City property, and just exactly where the previous speaker talked about. Now we've lived there for 40 years so we can testify to that with certainty. Thank you very much. In the back, please identify yourself. Betty Valencia, and I'm a coach here of the National Resources Committee. And these gentlemen might wanna come and talk to the committee just so that we can understand where their plans are and share with them. We do have some people on our committee who have expertise in natural resources. And just to clarify, the rec committee was one part of the open space committee. The natural resource committee is actually the nucleus of the open space committee with the addition of representatives from Rack Park and Racks and the Planning Commission, City Council. So I guess I would say please don't ignore the National Resources Committee. This is certainly a very important piece of our work and we have just gone through a process of developing priorities in one of them is wildlife connectivity. And so we'll be addressing that in our work. So anyway, I'd just like to invite the gentlemen to come to one of our meetings. Great, thank you very much. Tim, well, and then, thank you. Thank you. Tim Barrett, I live on the four-wheel drive in the Central Private. I'm here as a citizen of the city. I think that echo the concerns about the wildlife order is, you know, the Claire solar installation has no fencing unlike the Chinden solar project, which is fenced. And I think that the Public Utility Commission, formerly the PSB, approved it on purpose without the fencing in order to allow the wildlife quarter to conduct the animals and work in the south. So that project, right, is a free, open range for animals. And if you consider the compromise that the Bartlett-Weaver company came to with the city over the movement of some of the units in Cider Mill 1 and the Jamgolf settlement, right, you know that there is quite an importance placed by the city on that entire quarter from wheel their property all the way south. So anything to do that if the board can meditate on this and get the right input and have the developer get the right input about how many units should be in that squeeze point and whether some should be removed, I think that's a really important point to make. The second thing I want to say is that we're now in 2017 when Cider Mill 1 was first approved, there were certain regulations that don't exist concerning bike and pet connectivity. You have the opportunity here to make the right decision and ensure that we have a really solid bike rec path that comes from Hinesburg Road as deep into this project to connect with Cider Mill 1 as possible because that provides for the future and we do not want to make the same mistakes anymore that we have made in the past where we have approved projects and not push the developers to create segments of bike paths where they could be used in the future. So I just want to emphasize that as well. I'm also worried that the Claire solar project has a lifespan of around 25 years. So when they're done with that, they can pull up all those posts and take those solar panels and recycle them of course and that land will be developable. So I want to ask the question, what provision is there in this project for street layout to ensure connectivity to the north, to the Claire field, because someday it'll probably be residential. So you have too many houses along that northern edge, you're probably going to want to have a street running through the middle of that north-south. So I just want to make that point as well. The last point I want to make is that I think the point made about the open space for parkland just being people's backyards is a point that's very well made. I think the LDRs are clear that they want park space, not backyard space. And I think that there are slivers of open space here that do not equal parks and that it doesn't live up to the spirit of regulation. So we've seen other projects that have come before the board where there have been large amounts of space that have been coagulated for public enjoyment. I'm thinking about spear meadows for one. There was over an acre and a half of complete open space there. I know every project is different and has different dependencies on topography and whatnot. But there's an opportunity here for this developer to make a large amount of area open for everybody to enjoy and not to break it up into little slivers between people's backyards. Thank you. Is there a furniture? I'm Sarah Dopp, President of the South Roosevelt Land Trust and I don't want to say the same things again. You've heard it. Except to say that I want us on record as saying as we have throughout this project over many years that the wildlife corridor peace is very, very important. Kay really said it very eloquently but that's a very narrow squeeze point there. And we have to pay attention to that because everything to the north that we've somewhat been able to preserve and everything to the south that we'd better preserve depends on that little space. So that's one thing. Another is when Cytermill 1 was approved, I'm pretty sure we were of quite a different mindset about the width that roads had to be for fire, et cetera. So I think some of those wide boulevards that we're stuck with now in some of our early developments are acknowledged now to not really be needed and that's a traffic calming device as well to pull those streets in and make them more like a neighborhood than a boulevard that houses either side. So I think that's a strategy that should be considered. And also I should have gotten up to speed on this but I haven't. I can't remember the number of units that was contemplated for two when this all started. But this seems like an enormously huge number to be increasing it by. And I totally agree with speakers over here that that's just way too much concentration of people in that spot and traffic associated with the same. That's why we went through the presentation by Mara to start off with and as Ray indicated, Ray or Mara, I'm sorry, indicated in the staff notes that up to 600 plus units are buildable here legally and they're proposing somewhere around 300 now, 258 plus 45 as I think where they are now. So we appreciate your comments though and we're gonna, we will be interested in seeing what the interaction between the developers and the Natural Resources Committee can come forward with. Does that, yeah. Just to follow up question that 600 you mentioned is just based on the formula of 258. Yeah. But at all. You gotta look at the ground. No, not by formulas. Can I speak to that? Because this is the Southeast Quadrant zoning which we've discussed over the past, that knows how many years, so many times on so many different projects. And the base inherent density is 1.4. You're allowed up to four units if the development supports it. And if it supports it, you gotta get TDRs above 1.2 for each of those units. I know that this phase two is split into two different zones. It's the neighborhood residential and village residential which is base density 1.2 or up to four or up to eight. And I agree in listening to some of the comments that we've talked about the wildlife corridors and we've talked about the pedestrian movement through it, but we haven't spent much time at sketch which is when we should be talking about it about the overall inherent density of this project and the overall look of it. And in looking at it, it feels like it's shoehorned into every square inch of non wetland or wetland buffer space has a unit in it. And we also talk about the diversity and the mixture of housing types and this is just clumps of different housing types. And we've spent meeting upon meeting on other projects and all the other parts of the city in the Southeast Quadrant making sure it's mixed and it's not just a homogenous look of duplexes, might just look of carriage houses, single families that there is a mix to them and there's no real rich diversity in this project. You've got townhouses here, carriage homes here and single family here. So if you look at them on a pure numbers basis, there's a mix of them and there's a pretty good mix of them but they're not mixed amongst themselves. So you're gonna get little sort of like pocket developments of the same type of housing. And to me that doesn't speak to a diverse sort of development and Tim speaking as a citizen but also former DRB board member, he does raise an interesting point about the solar farm to the north and the fact that there's no planned connections or even there's no ability to connect to it. So if in 15 or 20 years that project does die away and it becomes developable land, it's isolated from this development because there's no planning for it. Where you've got this long strip of townhouses right here, which maybe we need to look at whether or not at least giving a right-of-way easement and separating it out. A would provide that connection and B would break up this long row of houses that it just feels tight to me. It does have a potential connection right here. The right-of-way is right against the property line and then there's a second connection up off Settemill. So if there's two potential connections. Something to look at. To me this, I don't know how the rest of the board feels, but this just feels like it feels too dense for what where this area is. And in addition to density count, turns on this permissible density turns in part on the idea that this is all one parcel for density purposes. One and two put together. Yeah, I think we need to look at that further because I don't know if phase two acreage alone times four and times eight, I suspect that they still have the density. We still have it. I think they still have it. I think we're talking about looking at this as one project, phase one and two for our ability to review certain aspects of phase one. Because they are, like I said, the whole 1.2 and four, 1.2 and eight, you can get quite a bit of density out of a site like this, so. Points well taken, Mark. And this is, you're right, the sketch plan is exactly where we should be considering that. Two more comments. Three more comments, okay, we'll go. I just wanted to offer, I forgot to give it to you, the other names of the other three people I'm representing, which is the same letter we sent before. And the satellite map for anybody up here who would want one, because I think it really tells a lot. So I just want to make sure that goes in the record somewhere. Great, thanks. Yeah, I'm sitting and I'm listening to all this. And you look at the diagram and you go back to when this thing was all originally approved, that isn't it anymore. You've got a nice, spacious development on the left and you've got everything all jammed in on the right being made by a developer that's three times removed from the original. The connector was approved to the original development because it was all being built by the same developer. As I understood it from Paul Connor, it wasn't mandated by the city, it was asked for and approved for the developer. We have many people commenting because of their concern for the additional traffic that's going to come through a very residential area. We have a lot of people here that can attest to that. And we have people very concerned about the effect on the wildlife corridor. So the question is why do we have this connection between phase one and phase two? Shouldn't the developer be looking at some other way of having a secondary access to this development? Why should it go through there? Given the concerns that everyone has, a boulevard-type east-west corridor or go through a hall of development to slow it down and a reduction in the north corridor. Not even a reduction, it's almost like a break on the wildlife corridor by putting in that road. I mean, so that's a question for the board. I mean, is that something that can be readdressed as to why is that there? I apologize for not having the specific reference, but the city has a stated objective of providing east-west connectivity in the southeast quadrant. Why does it have to be there? Well, I think one thing to take into account is that any east-west corridor connection is gonna break up the north-south wildlife corridor. So I mean, anyone that comes through with an east-west connector, you're gonna get that exact same argument. So I don't think there's, you can physically break up from a planning standpoint, city planning standpoint, and only have northwest vehicular movement and not start looking at how it gets. Suggested or intimated that that connection wasn't going to be a normal width street. It was gonna be a width, and you referred to it, Bill, it was gonna be like a, I forget the word, you used a shoulder or a. Similar to the connection to Dorset Heights. I think that was, there was a conversation. I don't think there was a. Silent Mill 2, the street was very from 18 feet to 26 feet. So as compared to Silent Mill 1, where all the streets are 30 feet wide, curb to curb. So on-street parking is encouraged in Silent Mill 2. Certainly on the narrower streets to 26 feet wide streets, which allows parking on one side, that basically prevents two-way traffic. So if someone's parked there and two cars are coming, someone's gonna stop and yield. But that is the whole theory behind slowing down traffic and presenting and eliminating east-to-west movement other than within the development. So that's the city's current standards and that's what Silent Mill 2 is designed to. So I'm sorry, what was the answer then? How wide is that going to be? I don't know that exact connection, but it's either 18 or 22 feet, I believe. The standard through a while and it's 18 feet. 18 feet, yep. And can I help you out? Is 18 feet for strict traffic going through? Is that slow things down? It's pretty narrow. It's pretty narrow, yeah. 18 feet is pretty narrow if you have two cars coming. Two nine-foot lanes. So I helped to bet. It does. It does. It's wildlife as well as for the traffic. So I got Karen Cabino and then I got you and then I got you. Well tying in with that and what Mark said earlier was regarding the density in the north part of Silent Mill 2. I lived in a neighborhood that was that dense with a waiver for a narrower street. And one of the problems that came about was the association president was continual pitting of residents against each other for access to the driveways, particularly in the wintertime. Because South Brillington owns the street, the residents can't do anything about who parks on the street or who does not. There's been driveways that were, you couldn't back out of your driveway, especially when the snow was there because the streets weren't totally cleared. There's a waiver that they're reduced in size and now you've got a neighbor that needs to go to work and they can't get out if somebody is parked opposite the bottom of the driveway. Legally parked according to South Brillington's rules. So yes, you wanna slow down traffic but you also don't want neighbors at each other's throat with that level of density that you have up there and rest assured it gets pretty nasty with the narrower roads where people just, not a very good place to live. That's a good point. I have two questions. Both pertaining to the road but in different respects. First, I would say an 18 foot road, that would be below. I mean. That would be a no parking road. It would be a what? A no parking road. But would it require some sort of waiver from the city because I don't know how you can have an 18 foot city, is it supposed to be a city street? It could be an 18 foot wide city street. It crosses a wetland. Pardon? When it crosses a wetland. Okay. Second is I'm asking staff for my information. The concept of connectivity between developments. Is this an absolute or is it a consideration to be taken into account in the totality of approving a PUD? Is it a Dezito Rotem in other words or a mandate? I think the comprehensive plan also has a policy about connecting, having connectivity. But it's not a requirement. It's not a hard and fast thou shalt kind of requirement. So the boy would be free for example, I'm asking to weigh the desirability of connectivity against the desirability of further protecting the wildlife card. That would be within the board's discretion, is that correct? Well, if it's not. Think about that one. Well, if it's not required, then it's discretionary, is it? I think I want to review the comprehensive plan. Also the official map. The comprehensive plan doesn't control the LDR. So we've had this discussion in other context. It goes towards policy. Right, I understand that. But the LDR is what controls. So I think until you can give me chapter and verse, I'm going to be of the view that the board is free to balance. I'm not saying which way it ought to come out. I'm just saying the board is free to balance other desiratah, other policies and other requirements of the LDRs against the policy or the desiratah of connectivity. And I'll leave my comment there for the time being. So it'll be number three. I've got, there you are. Did you have a comment? I did. I just did the math, so it's 536 extra cars. If every family has two cars, which is pretty common, if not three, that would make it more. And if the streets are narrower and they're parking in the streets, there is no place to ride your bike. And I'm an adult and I look out, but what about the kids? I just don't understand why you would approve that. But I would like to know what are the criteria you use to approve or disapprove? One question. What do you mean that 500 extra cars? If they're proposing 154. 268 extra families. No, they're proposing 154 units. The proposal. Not if you have 70 single family, 54 two family dwellings and 33, 33 family dwellings. Right, so the 54 accounts each individual unit in a two family. Sorry? That's all right. Right, there's 27 two family dwellings consisting of 54 families. Confusing buildings with dwellings. You're talking about two cars, not one car. They're proposing 154 dwelling units. So in addition to what they. No, in phase two, cider milk two is a hundred right now. The proposal before us is 154 units, which if everyone has two cars is 308. No, it's not a small number. And I guess I want to know what criteria you are using to approve such a thing. And that wasn't the original approved map. I'm actually only adding 45 units to just to remind the board that it's currently approved for 109 units that we could get permits for and build. Right. So the criteria, the criteria that we use the land development regulations and the wetland restrictions and other factors like wildlife quarters and so on. So I'm sorry. Human life. So that's traffic study. And there are. Children playing, there's no bike path there. There's nothing there, except more of everything. As a practical matter, what happens in a substantial development is that the developer spends a lot of money on a traffic study. It's this thick. The traffic study that finally gets presented to the board I'm not going to say invariably because I haven't seen every traffic study but I've never seen a developer that didn't present a traffic study that said, this is fine. All right. It is practically impossible to defeat that conclusion unless there is a competing traffic study which is very expensive and most adjoining property owners can't afford unless they band together to hire a traffic study for them collectively and then present that expert's testimony and that may have weight. Short of that, it's generally a losing proposition for the opposing landowner or the one who wants the your kind of considerations taken into account. That's a very one-sided point of view. Reality-based, however. And represents one person here. I mean, I will say that almost every one of them that I've seen has included left-hand turn lanes and everything else that's required in order to get to the point that you need to get to. So, yes, they attempt to come up with solutions. That's what their job is and the solutions you may not always agree with. Okay, next. And the purpose, I live on a corner of Winesap Ancider Mill. So, the extension or diversion of traffic. I will probably see every car that goes by. And so, I took it... One question I'd have for clarification is the connector at the top of the royal, the turn drive, they connect that door to the height. What is that to the tech in South Burlington? And what is it considered right now? Is it a wreck path? Or is it an emergency vehicle path? Connects to the top. You'll see just at the top of the royal. I'm curious... Yeah. Doors at heights and... It's wider than a wreck path. I believe it's an emergency vehicle. Yes, it is both a recreation path and an emergency access since there is only one street connection currently to Sider Mill One, which serves 149 units. It's only in the event that there's like a fire at the entrance of Sider Mill that prevents vehicles from leaving or entering, then the emergency vehicles will use that. Or residents. Or residents. I mean, it's an emergency access in an emergency, whether you're a resident or an emergency vehicle. For Sider Mill Two, could that not serve... From an emergency consideration, East-West, I would be more open to it if it was an emergency East-West access and it was maintained like a bike path and it would join the families, be it a bike, walk, whatever, but not cars. Not normal traffic patterns that really are going to hurt the residents of Sider Mill One. And it could actually hurt Sider Mill Two if we decide that's our quickest route to High Street Road, perhaps. And all those residential neighbors' housing that you put along the talk, which probably would be family homes, the risk is both sides. So I'd really like to just put that as a proposal. That becomes an emergency access, not a East-West high-velocity traffic. And if that doesn't work, my second request is, or suggestions, is there not a alternative Sider Mill Two to actually supply two accesses to meet the minimum access route of 50 units per level? You know, I'm not really going to address your direct concerns. I guess I want to speak as sort of, I guess, the old dog on that board that's been here forever and has seen so many different iterations of so many different projects that I've seen this happen before. You know, this project was approved as a two-phase project. You know, they currently have approval for 109 units in phase two in a certain configuration we've seen and Marla showed it. It had, it was approved with the connection to Hinesburg Road, you know, in some general configuration here, you know, and if they weren't looking to change the layout, that's what they could go and start pulling permits for and build, you know, and that's what was approved when your project was approved, you know. So what happens when these projects go on a hiatus and they come in to relook at their layout, they're asking for more density, they're not asking for 154 units, they're asking for 45 more than they were originally approved for. So they are asking for more density and that's our job as a board to hear them, to look at how it impacts the development, whether we feel the project supports it, whether the study supports it through traffic studies, through input through these public hearing processes. But what happens is that we move into the original development, get used to what they're living in and then they see this new development coming in that's not really, like I said, a new development per se. It was already planned, the connection was already planned, the city and the board, I can tell you, we want interconnectivity between neighborhoods. The connection between Cytermill Drive and Dorset Heights isn't ideal, it's sort of like a secondary oh, we needed a second means of egress for emergency purposes. I would not support as a connection between one and two, doing another one of these emergency breakaway barriers or just in the event of an emergency, we want neighborhoods to connect both pedestrian and vehicular. So, you know, I think what we're looking at and that's the way I'm looking at it as a board, as a board member is what the applicant's proposing is the change between 109 and 154. Is the project supported? Does the land support it? And, you know, by density it does support it. Especially, you know, one thing I was looking at is that, you know, the section of the project up here, you know, from a big picture city planning standpoint, that's considered village residential. It's planned if it can support up to eight units. It's meant to be a much denser type of development than the 1.24, up to 4 for neighborhood residential. So, you know, the city wants, you know, a much higher density and type of housing. So, in that regard, you know, I think that that is appropriate for what, you know, we have to look at what's a planned character of the neighborhood. Not what's currently there or what's been there in the past, what's planned character and that's what the city decided to plan character for this development and this location. So, you know, I, again, I often stick my foot in my mouth. I contradict myself at these meetings because, you know, you hear comments, you think about it, you know, and you start to realize that this is sort of what the city is planning for this location. And when they talked about the southeast quadrant zoning, you know, the whole purpose of TDRs and the much more sensitive land where you're going to have any development, it's to send that density to these locations. You know, it's sending in the receiving areas in the southeast quadrant. So, it's looking at the whole 1200 acres or whatever, how many acres it was for the whole southeast quadrant. Not one little area and how one little piece of land is impacted by, you know, four units per acre. And that's my spiel on the big picture development of historically these projects and what we have before us, before and now and how I as a board member am going to be looking at this project. Thanks very much. You're next and then we'll go back and to next YouTube. Now, I've lived here for 40 years and I'm not used to any of this development and you all change bases all the time and you have no idea what goes on before this and you don't even care. I attended a meeting maybe six years ago, I think Sarah was there at the Vermont National and we talked about what we wanted for the southeast quadrant. We all decided we wanted to remain rather rural. Now these folks don't care what they put here. I'll bet they don't even live in the South Burlington. They just want to make a lot of money and look what they've given us. Is that rural? Does that have anything to do with the philosophy that used to be South Burlington? No. In fact, we have a development next to us that was approved by the planning commission and this gentleman here, I think was the chairman of the planning commission. It was a disaster because he was supposed to not build anything within 30 feet of my private road and yet there is this house on the corner, a duplex which doesn't belong there either which is 11 feet. So I'm sort of not trusting the planning commission or developers any more. I think you ought to take a serious look at this, go back and look at the philosophy of what the planning commission and the city council wanted done to the southeast quadrant. This is ruining it. Thank you. I just wanted to make a point that the original plan that was developed, that connector had two right angles in it very close together. So it was, I don't know what the width was but it inherently would be much more friendly to slowing traffic wildlife crossing discouraging fast cut through. So if we're going back to what the original that was approved as the default of what we need to go forward with consider that was what it looked like way back then. Thank you very much. Just speaking of history again something that kind of preceded this you were alluding to the village residential component of this we're going to have eight units per acre and I know that's so. But 15 years ago or so the map had these two red bars on that area and the village residential with the two red bars and I don't remember how much distance it was between the two. They both ran east west and the whole concept of that I didn't like that concept but the concept was based on some fairly I mean deaths eight units per acre in those two strips and in between would be a large like a village green and the concept was it was going to be a big park which was going to serve the numerical requirements of the people in that corner of the southeast quadrant. Well those two red bars just kind of stayed there on the map after we long departed from the idea of the park and the common area in between them. So I mean it's just an aberration it's a total aberration they never looked back at those two village residential strips as far as I'm sense to have those two strips plonk in the middle of basically rural land does that make sense anymore it doesn't to my mind but you know we're left with that little vestige of what was on the map 15-20 years ago. Very good. Thank you very much. Please identify yourself. I'm Ed Van Wurt I just want to make a comment on Mark's point about people in one neighborhood you were explaining that this is what often happens people in one neighborhood and then there's an expanse and then they take your share with it I may be wrong but I believe there is no one in Cider Mill 1 who bought property there without knowing full well that Cider 2-2 Cider Mill 2 was going in we certainly knew about it I'm sure in the whole purchase process everyone was informed of that I think what's going on here is the change and what you see now it's a big difference and I won't rehash all the differences but you've heard of so I think everybody knew that it's just the change and that was I think the point is well taken and I would ask if it was being philosophical whether the buyers in Cider Mill 1 at least with respect to density didn't have a reasonable expectation that what they'd be looking at is 109 units not 154 and that that is as material to what we ultimately allow when change is requested as is the theoretically maximum permitted density these people bought one might argue in reliance unless you take the cynical view that well you can never rely on something the DRB has told you about what's going to happen in the future Frank there is a section of this I'm not promoting this but that top section was reserved for additional development and it's village residential so right from the start there may have been 109 but there was clear that there was going to be more that was a expectation then that's a valid observation I wouldn't argue just the approved master plan with phase 1 and phase 2 future development village right thanks very much that's where our increase in density is coming from for the overall project very helpful final comments wrap up thank you all very much for coming and for sitting through this and for the comments it was very very helpful I think that the developers any reason to come back you're now free to go staff comments and then also on a big picture basis do we want to continue the sketch plan to allow the city to or to get another opinion on phase 1 phase 2 we're looking at so we know where we stand and also the idea of rack paths input in terms of do we want to try to get a better east west connectivity on the bike path or are we happy with it just terminating after the one long stretch in and a natural resource and open space I think that goes to well they're not the same thing okay and open space I know that to say this is only a it's about a 50% increase in what the base density was originally which is going to the future residential development which was set aside so it really was planned to be about this dense to begin with but this is a big project and you're coming to us at sketch and I think we have an opportunity to the city to the neighbors and to future you know the buyers of it that we do our due diligence on this so you know I think that much as it's just the original approval with the additional village residential I would like to take it to the as massage it as well as we can staff comments number one staff recommends the board discuss the applicant whether reducing the width of Russet Road to 18 feet for its were achieved the same goal so back to the plan so basically Russet Road is this section here and it's there just to make the second connection to single family homes you know it does have some wetland impact it's got all state permits you know to build it I believe it's shown as 22 feet wide and the question we had a conversation with staff as to whether you know that would be a road that would make it so much small on that to minimize the impact if you look at the circulation it's a road that really likely nobody is going to use I mean you know these folks really don't have any reason to travel this section you know people coming out of the single family you know are likely going to take the main road out you know because if you go this way then you've got to turn you know and come back through you know these carriage homes so it's a piece of road nobody's going to use so we just thought we'd ask the board whether they would consider a reduction in width you know or potentially you know we even talked about something that you don't like Mark but a potential bike path connection you know for an emergency access instead of a full-blown road not a deal breaker for us just thought we'd bring it up and see what the board's if you wanted to be a bike path connection you would have to run through everyone and B I'd want it to be part of an interconnected bike path system not just to use it as your just for clarity would that remain private then because my understanding is it running over a wetland ray is the 18 foot width permissible in that area with the recommendation by the public works director the board can reduce the width to 18 feet if it's not crossing a wetland if it's crossing a wetland if it's crossing a wetland the regulations allow it to be reduced down to 18 feet but in any event it can be reduced in the discretion of the board with a recommendation of public works correct yeah guidance from the board I'd support 18 feet but I don't like the idea of doing another one he's a little bike path connector you know for 18 feet seems okay yeah it's the same distance from the property line right now right as it isn't as well as the MP 0701 Russet Road is the same exact position as the project that's approved right yeah 350 feet long in the section we're talking about 18 small yeah same here number two number two talks about whether we have received an evaluation from the Vermont agency of transportation as to whether a northbound left turn lane or southbound the acceleration lane is warranted at the intersection with Heinzburg Road we have commissioned traffic study that will be submitted to the board along with the preliminary plan set so we haven't heard from the AOT obviously we haven't completed the traffic study number three number three staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant whether the sidewalk would better serve residents on Linda Mack street if it was located on the other side of the proposed road maybe we can zoom in Linda Mack is this street right here I believe so currently we have the sidewalk shown on this side of the street and we put it there because we felt that provided the best connectivity with the sidewalk or the path that goes to the open space area here and then continues across to the small square here so we don't see that makes a whole lot of difference which side of the street is on that was a preference just thinking that say if you lived on this lot then you could come down the sidewalk you wouldn't have to cross and you could follow that path up through whereas if it was on the other side of the street you'd cross once to get to the sidewalk and then you'd cross again to get to the path so you know that's where we picked it we don't have any objections really to being on the other side what was the staff's reasoning for the issue the idea was whether the residents on the other side were served already by the sidewalk going behind their homes so having it on the south side might serve more residents but your point is taken about connectivity and having to cross the street fewer times as well okay the way we that's why we picked it on that side okay I believe it's 10 feet or just over what's the purpose of it just to allow access to the open space in the back without having to walk through somebody's yard number four staff recommends the board discussed with the applicant their intended open space amenities playground sports apparatus benches as we talked about before we did meet with the parks and they indicated their preference for more open space mode area that's what we've shown on the plan while we're at that point though I'm in agreement with some of what I've heard already which is you've got a lot of little spaces that you're calling park that are so small that they're not terribly usable I I'd rather see if you can find a way to do it some way to combine more of those spaces as Frank pointed out and create something that's actually a valid park Matt you agree Frank and that you explicitly go back to parks and recreation you haven't seen them with respect to this plan as it stands now that's my understanding that's correct it's not much different my request is you go back to parks and recreation show them this see what they say the biggest difference between this plan and the plan we did go to was the fact that we had the NATO parcel included so we actually had more units the plan we met with parks we had more units and what we have on this plan but the configuration is pretty much the same with some suggested changes that parks and rec have so they haven't seen the plan since we made the changes that they asked for but we concur that would be appropriate for us to go back and see them again I appreciate it thank you Five please Five is the same we'd like to see them to talk a little bit more about how some of the easements we show will work in the future as usable bike paths as we commented one of the easements we've located so it kind of slides through the wetlands the best we can the other easement basically connects to existing easements on neighboring properties Setting for number six Correct Great number seven Could I ask just an information question about six about the solar farm I don't quite understand it this has no connection to you you have no ownership interest in it you have no arrangement for direct use of the power they're just a money making solar farm putting power into the grid is that right Yeah those are your words not mine we have no connection to them I mean you know how you have no special rights not associated with them we don't have any agreements with that parcel Frank you can talk to Joe Larkin next time he's here Number seven please Staff recommends Board remind the applicant to review the residential design requirements and recommendations of sections 9.08C and 9.09C prior to future stages of the review process we acknowledge that requirement and 8 is staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant their intended mix of housing types throughout the development we've heard Mark's comments about that and we'll take that into consideration you know from a marketing perspective I can understand why in the mix from a marketing perspective for us it's usually you know people kind of tend to like to have it sectioned a little bit is our experience but I think that's it for comments we've been through public comments we've been through board comments any more comments final comments so we are going to continue this until we get a legal opinion on the combinability of the two phases or that continues or before preliminary that's a very good point to me preliminary is fine by preliminary is fine how does the board feel do you want the developers to meet with the committees before the next time they come back for preliminary excuse me for sketch I just I just think that whatever we find out from the attorney about combining the two wouldn't affect how the committees react to the so that's a good point I would agree that you know that ruling might have a fairly large effect on the sketch plan good so so that first and then the meetings with committees can come after that because they will be affected by that decision sounds great would you like to continue or well it really depends on how quickly the legal opinion can be turned around let's maybe we continue it for two weeks and if we haven't gotten it we can continue that's great that's great let's try for two weeks and we'll continue then beyond that if we haven't gotten it by then I would move that we continue sketch plan application SD 1720 of JJJ South Burlington LLC to October 3rd second move in second we continue October 3rd all in favor say aye opposed thank you very much take care next on the agenda is minutes oh okay she's passing it on just one page okay take one and this is for the meeting of September 5th it was a long one yes well hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey it took probably five times longer yes I think it did this is the 8 minute meeting this is the 8 minute meeting yes very good exactly on the note exactly 8 minutes yeah will we approve the minutes from September 5th second and second will we approve the minutes from September 5th all in favor say aye opposed thank you very much is there any other business yes same business I raised every other time exactly right thank you very much Frank you're just going to say ditto which I would do at length if we had more people okay very good thank you very much that's the end of the development report at 9 27 thanks very much and good evening thanks all