 the the All right, let's rock and roll. Wait one sec. I just came out of here. Dave Raphael, can you speak just so we can hear people? Somebody? Yep, I'm here. August 25th, recording in progress. Mission meeting. It's got a microphone open. It was me. It went back off. I don't know why. OK. Just feedback from Josh. OK. No, it was me. I had it immediately, but it went back. So welcome, everyone. We have a full slate of commissioners this evening. So before we do anything else, I'm going to actually turn the gavel over to Catherine. And let the election of officers occur. Oh, it's yours. I'm uncharacteristic. Why? For a bit. So we have three officers. That's great. So there's the chair, vice chair, and something. So I'd like to open it up for nominations for those. If we want to do it separately, is that better to do it than the slate? And we do it. I'll make a motion that we all nominate the current slate of officers. OK. So that is Dustin for chair and Josh for vice chair and John Mangan. John Mangan. Oh, John. Second. Tom. All right. Second by Tom. Any discussion? Yes. Yes. Discussion? Or yes. I think that was yes. He accepts. All right. Well, how about all in favor? Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. All right. Looks like we have the scabble going back over to you. Thank you. He's heading to zero. We are still echoing, so. No, that's just the speaker here. You're live in the room. You're live in the room too. OK. Oh. Before we get into anything else, I would like anybody that's either online or in the audience that is going to speak this evening. Please stand and we'll swear you in so that we have it covered. Do you swear that any testimony you present this evening will be truthful to the best of your abilities? Thank you. And online? You can unmute for this if you would. I'm assuming. Yes. Thank you. All right. First item on our agenda is public comment. We open this up for folks to offer comment on items that are not on the agenda or is in the case of this evening items that are on our consent agenda. This is an opportunity for the public to provide points to the planning commission. It is also an opportunity for planning commissioners and or staff to offer comments about the consent agenda. So I'm open for discussion points. If we have folks online, if you could. I don't know how zoom works. Say hi, raise your hand. Who's the reaction? She can see it. So yes, if you are on zoom, if you're here with us on a computer, use the reactions button towards the bottom of your screen. You might have to mouse over it. And then there is a raise hand option. You can also put something in the chat if you can't find that. And if you are on the phone, I don't think we have anyone on the phone, but if you are star six, we'll unmute you. And you can just start speaking. You have Joe. Ms. Harvey. Ms. Harvey. Please. Your comments. I'm. I'm. Go ahead, Joe. You almost had it. You're muted again. Okay. There you go. I think it's Joe. Is this Joe Harvey? It's actually Joe. Joe's father. Did you have a comment to make? No. I thought it was just sort of making my presence known. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, any questions on the consent agenda? Okay. Moving on next item on the agenda is the consent agenda item, which is a minor site plan amendment. I'm going to say that the plan is proposing to add a one add one 15 by 100 foot storage building to accommodate 40 storage units to the existing eight storage buildings located at 220 Colchester road in the I1 zone. There were no questions, so I would take a motion. I move we approve the consent agenda. Moved by Josh's seconded by Patty. All those in favor. Motion carries seven zero. Thanks. That letter printed before we leave tonight. Okay. So the next item on our agenda is the public hearing for Pinewood Holdings proposal for 34 unit PUD R consisting of 19 single family building lots and five triplex buildings. Darren. Yes. Can you give us the presentation on this? Let me get the plans up and I will start speaking while we do that. So this is the third iteration of this stage of Pinewood's development, say section I, so the ninth phase of Pinewood which is located off of River Road 117 and to cooperate I can get us to know if it's a final locator, Matt. I can see if they're in the waiting room. I can't see. So Pinewood is located off River Road 117 with access to the Pinewood Drive and Valley View Drive. The site is at the top of the development. Looking at the overall master plan here's how things fit in and we are looking at just one sec while I get this located you can see the end of what this is called Wilderness Circle but it's actually Stonebrook Circle and what is actually Evergreen Drive so we're looking at the areas beyond that. This is the master plan which is now being amended as part of this proposal to look more like this. As just said 19 single unit lots with five sets of triplexes, 15 units total sorry for the slowness of the computer here. So we have seen various iterations of this before previously staff had recommended denial for the last iteration because of the significant impacts to steep slopes as well as concern about potential for erosion and stormwater issues based on the previous section H and lack of compliance to those standards during construction however, so the applicant withdrew that proposal before the planning commission made a decision since then staff and the applicant have met mid-May, May 16th to review a revised proposal we'll use before you which significantly reduces the impacts to steep slopes and this is much more in line with what staff would recommend. We do recognize there are still some minor impacts to steep slopes but with the understanding that the applicant is going to mitigate and minimize and mitigate any disturbances that are proposed and provide documentation that any erosion and stormwater impacts would not be created, staff is willing to consider this proposal as a sketch plan and recommend that the applicant proceed to preliminary in order to do the engineering work during that meeting we had some debate about the letter of the law in terms of the town plan and zoning regulations which do expressly prohibit development on slopes greater than 20% and yet the existing neighborhood of Pinewood has clearly built on slopes of that grade and it is located in the R2 zoning district which is encouraged for residential development so as a compromise we are trying to find a way to allow for some residential development that still meets the intent of the town plan and the zoning regulations so we do have a few outstanding questions about this particular design aside from the need to demonstrate limits to area, no impacts to slopes community development coordinated with public works and public works does not support the current layout of shared driveways typically only two units are allowed on a single driveway under our regulations and public works is sticking to that but there was discussion with the applicant at that May 16th meeting about potentially consolidating accesses for several lots in order to further avoid steep slopes so that would require a waiver by the planning commission potentially a waiver from the select board but we don't want to fully weigh in on that until public works has had a chance to provide more feedback on the specifics we would look for additional fire protection for those units and additional access provisions but willing to consider it and then we also want to make sure that those roadways will never become public they will be maintained as private and that the maintenance of those drives will be provided for by the homeowners last point I want to make is that staff is proposing that there be a trail easement on the remaining lands that connects to Freeman Woods which is the parcel off to the north west which is owned by the town this is in town plan map 7 this is a proposed footpath network segment so the easement is required by the owning and subdivision regulations and the applicant is agreeable to that one thing we would like to discuss is if there is any further development of that trail as part of this proposal either a surveying to make sure the location is nailed down or possibly actual construction of that trail I do have a couple corrections to the staff report let me get that up that trail is the one behind your house thanks for your patience so I did want to note first on line 12 the meeting that says May 25th was actually May 16th as I mentioned before there is a line 204-205 saying that additional use review would be required for triplexes however that is not the case for those within a planning and development so I just want to clarify that no conditional use is required for this project and then the last correction was just a typo an incomplete sentence on line 463 remaining non-flippant lots can just be stricken that is addressed elsewhere so with that we'll hand it back to you Desti thank you Darren commissioners any questions at this stage for staff you guys on line don't have to be so quiet no questions for me nudgey nudge ditto so let's move on to applicant who's presenting for it gentlemen gentlemen do me a favor folks on line if you're not speaking mute yourself so we don't get feedback into the meeting itself and could I ask that people want to talk and raise their hand if they give their name and address for the record so that I can document that in the minutes please thank you Brian Currier Larry Burke civil associates Dave Burke from Larry Burke as well here with me and Brian Marcott I'm in development did you put that master plan back up there you know perfect so I just wanted to give a little quick quick overview of how we feel this proposal has minimized what our concern was on our last rendition of Pinewood to be the biggest issue as minimizing impact to steep slopes so this is the 2003 master plan that was approved as part of section H you can see the red here is showing a rec path that's along a proposed roadway so this is section H right here that's bolded in the most recent version of the master plan shows these two right-of-ways connecting it shows public all public roadways going towards the east also connecting to Timberlane Drive and another public roadway running parallel 61 units traditional subdivision just like you'd see in Pinewood back in section H in all the previous versions that came with it very large footprint encroached on Allenbrook river corridor that's there now there's been recent active 50s decisions determining where conservation buffer is along the CERC now that's being taken into consideration and this plan is what backs 96 EU's of sewer allocation that are dedicated to this parcel so if you can go to the next set Darren you have the section I ones from 2001 section H do you mean? I ones I sent you earlier okay I'll look at that right now although the previous iteration section I in 2021 the PDFs get bigger and bigger there you go okay so this is the west side so everything that's shaded in this light green color is what town of Essex would define as a steep slope greater than 20% in grade you can see the impact that was proposed there's a private cul-de-sac where before the master plan had a looping road a lot off of a private road these are built to public work standards we had a private cul-de-sac a lot of carriage units this is more what you would find in a traditional PUD and then if you can go to the other one Darren we kept the public roadway connecting these two cul-de-sacs and this was more in line with the traditional sub-vision but all the lots were truncated to avoid more impacts of steep slopes but you can see the impact was still fairly significant significant enough where we didn't have the town support from planning and zoning we didn't have it from public works and we felt the planning commission was in line with the town departments and we decided to withdraw our application we did gain a sketch plan approval for this layout but we withdrew our application further on so if you go to what's being proposed tonight I should know that was 49 units what's being proposed tonight is everything 20% or more now is shown in blue so we have a private driveway no longer a private cul-de-sac much less impact serving three single family lots where this is flat you can see everywhere that's white is either a flat space that should be developed or a wetland and obviously we're staying away from the wetlands yeah zoom in is great yep there's a class 2 here but the driveway follows the right way that was left over from the master plan to serve these three single family lots and we still have the single family lot that abuts the last lot that was approved as part of section 8 can you go a little bit to the right Darren next page or just this yeah this is good so as you can see instead of the cul-de-sac that was cited right in the middle here we are fitting in a private driveway to serve five single family lots again the lots being located on areas that aren't steep slopes we're accessing them while trying to mitigate as much impact as steep slopes as we possibly can and then the public road is still being proposed off the end of stowed hedge but in the previous rendition we connected to timber lane drive now it's an 870 linear foot public roadway with single family lots on both sides but at the end we're proposing to construct five triplexes 15 multifamily units something that hasn't been done in Pinewood before but you know you can see the white space that's here that's not steep slopes suitable for that amount of density you can see this is class 2 wetland buffers associated on the site where the other white areas are this is a large class 2 wetland that we're completely staying out of but we've taken considerable steps to stay away from a classic subdivision that is traditional in Pinewood and even further from the previous PUD that was proposed last year for an earlier rendition of section 9 so this layout includes 34 units the PUD density is 62 units if you take out steep slopes flood plains public roadways so we're about half of what the PUD density says that we can propose there's 19 single family lots and again the new piece of this is 15 multifamily units that tonight we're showing as triplexes it's designed to significantly impact the amount of steep slopes that we're doing there's one public roadway, two private driveways and we're avoiding the class 2 wetlands the conservation buffer I touched on before is this red heavy line here that was a agreement with Actu-50 that we're not proposing any encroachments same as last time there's a significant amount of open space we've gotten away from a lot of the single family lots more in line with the typical plan unit development and as staff touched on before before we came in front of the PUD there's a significant amount of open space and as staff touched on before before we came in front of you tonight we weren't sure whether or not we were going to come through with a concept plan or a sketch plan at this point and after meeting with the town departments in May we got feedback that we should propose a sketch plan and we're here tonight to get the planning commissions taken on and answering any questions you might have anything that you wanted to call out and the staff report the body of it I think it's pretty well summarized in the talking points and the approval conditions if you don't mind jumping to the back let's page Brian let's go to page 15 so two way demonstrate that the proposal will adequately avoid minimize and mitigate potential erosion and stormwater impacts resulting from construction on slopes greater than 15% great so I spent the last 5-10 minutes talking about how we have taken considerable steps to minimize impacting steep slopes now what we would do between now and preliminary is we would put together a set of erosion control and prevention plans we would be amendable to getting our permit to construct from the state of Vermont the public works construction specifications they defer to the state erosion control permit for any site that impacts more than one acre we're fine getting that permit if the planning commission requests us to before coming in front of you for a preliminary application there's a lot of things that have changed since section 8 was constructed I think what hasn't been talked about enough is section 8 was approved in the early 2000s yet it was built 10-15 years later so obviously there's been a considerable difference in change construction regulations since section 8 was approved we would be trying to limit areas of impact to 5 acres at a time rather than clearing for house sites and road right-of-ways we would be limited we would be proposing to just clear for roadways construct the roadway once the roadway is done or enough of it it's been graveled or stabilized where we can keep our impacted acreage under 5 acres then we would move to a house site but not just constructing everything all at once okay so that's how we would propose to satisfy A there's other parts of the staff report that traditions talk about regarding specific lots if some lots are of question by the planning commission we wouldn't mind doing more more work on individual lots kind of like you would see in the AR district maybe the building envelope is slightly smaller and not just restricted to the setbacks maybe we do a approved driveway design that meets the town standards for driveway design grade and then at that point planning commission can determine if that is an adequate lot or not those sort of things we can do between now and preliminary what we can't do is not impact any slopes that are greater than 20% and I don't think planning and zoning is of the opinion that that is a firm rule there is plenty of precedent in Essex for impacting steep slopes well away from Pinewood and a lot of planning commissioners have been around for a long time I'm sure they can think of quite a few but I guess we're looking for feedback on 2A tonight so before we go into hitting that let's just remember that this is sketch so sketch is really to capture the intent of both the planning commission and the overall application so that gives us leeway that even if the language isn't what you necessarily prefer it's a final stage that it may be just something we identify if we can't get to the point of saying yeah we want to take it out or whatever but I think this is exactly what this sketch is for us to identify these points that both the applicant, the staff and the planning commission and the public all are concerned about so we just keep that it's a little looser than the next one but it does constitute a significant step for the applicants to be able to move forward we got that so with that commissioners any questions at this point for the applicant or staff again as well I have a question looks like sites 13 through 13 then adjacent ones there's a real steep slope from the driveway down to the the lots what would be the plan for driveways for those lots 13 through 17 there so I think likely 13 through 17 would be walkout units you would have 10 feet of grade from the front of the unit to the back of the unit oh I see so you wouldn't be you'd basically be putting the basement floor elevation at existing grade for 13 to 17 you'd be in the ground maybe three four feet but essentially we would propose those as walkouts okay what about a driveway would there be any driveway or just park along the road nope driveway so the driveway would be pretty much the same elevation as the roadway 13 through 17 I wouldn't expect maximum driveway slope to be an issue with those lots okay I remember walking through there and it was just pretty steep slope down and from the and before when we had lots on the north side of the roadway the roadway was higher because we had lots on the high side we had lots on the low side now we're only showing primarily lots on the low side so the roadway can be built lower to help with any grade change that may take place in front of 13 through 17 so the road is going to be cut down in so there won't be so many contour lines between the building and the road correct we can fit the road in better than the way we were proposing it before there's a pretty significant knob aside from a lot 12 that we're not going to propose any units on before we had two or three units where that knob was yeah so Darren's got a little walk out okay and then lot 10 is plopped right on the 20% slope the time just for context and for the public as well this is what a walk out is what we're talking about in that context so it's a two level house where it's built into the side of the slope yeah I know what a walk out is I'm just thinking that the proposed roadway runs right across the top of the slope so basically through the edges the left side is building and then where would the building go I guess I'm not following well like look at lot 14 you see all the contour lines are bunched up yeah between between the orange the highlight and the road so it doesn't look like there's any flat space in the front to put a house even if you have a walk out so here's the building envelope you can't see my laser pointer yeah well Darren's following me with the cursor so this is the building envelope so we're 20 feet back from the right and these grade lines are 2, 4, 6, 8 feet below the roadway and then you can see this area is all white so this area is less than 20% slope so some fill would be added in front of this house in order for the driveway to be about equal to the roadway grade elevation and then we would break a story across the house with a walk out like Darren was showing and then the back of the yard would be a nice flatter area that's less than 20% um so are those all those lines across going across slope 14 are those contour lines or are those some other kind of lines those are contour lines and they're proposed contour lines so unlike previous sketches we've submitted I wanted to show more for what a potential grading plan may look like for the roadway so you can see the extent of grading rather than just showing the roadway through existing contour lines and trying to determine how many cuts and fills I'm actually putting more detail in that we would typically not see in a sketch plan application but because slopes have been recurring theme we felt there was necessary at this point what's the difference in elevation between contour lines there they're two foot contours so it's probably 8 feet okay okay for clarification the finished grading is not a requirement of sketch plan but what Brian wanted to show was for the roadway itself so those finished grades there are what would be required if the houses aren't there and the finished grading for the time plans is going to wrap around those houses so while you're looking at grading, you're looking at grading without the complete picture and at preliminary the grading will get modified there and the changing grade is from the front of the house to the back of the house instead of between the roadway and the front of the house so what's shown here is proposed grading just for the roadway not for the locks so it's going to be a bunch of fill in there so Tom are you looking to have essentially the front of the house and the driveway be equal with the level of the road no, it just looks like it's 10 or 12 feet lower in a very short period of time so this would just wait for preliminary to have that cleared up when we chase the slope for roadway like these contours where there aren't lots on the north side of the road here those will probably be design elevations because there's no lots over here that's what it will entail to chase the slope to put a roadway through here on this side those contours aren't going to represent the grading where the lots are shown it's only to determine the impact for the road so the driveway won't come down on a one on two slope off the right away the foundation of the building will be set close to existing grade for the basement slab and then the finished floor will be about at the same elevation as the roadway let's make sure we capture that going forward so we don't lose that thought and target those lots will be those are the then my other only other contours lot 10 is mostly in the 20 degree slope yep understandable we could potentially move the rear lot line a little further back limit the envelope to like I was saying more in a rural subdivision you'll see envelopes aren't just dictated by setbacks so if we to the high point here maybe the driveway you know comes off 10 through an easement you know maybe it goes through 11 we'd have to look and see we'd have to look at it in more detail and if we can't come up with a solution that the planning commission is okay with then you know maybe lot 10 is off the table but you know like 12 is a great example that potentially there's a shared driveway 11 those are the sorts of things that we will look at between now and preliminary if the general consensus is we like where you're headed okay thank you so let's roll through the other commissioners John John yep I'm here sorry no I don't have any questions like Tom's questions though I can answer a couple things I was going to mention okay Josh I don't have any questions right now I appreciate it Tom's deep dive David I'm good right now thank you Patty I'm good right now thanks Brian back here you're right you said you would you'd get the EPSC permit before you went to final before preliminary before preliminary the public works reg site they defer to the state permit any site more than one acre so you know if that's a area of concern we have no problem chasing that down before preliminary I don't really have any other questions right now okay so with that let's I would take a motion to open the public hearing so moved second Josh all those in favor aye closed public hearing is open motion carries 7-0 we did have late arrivers okay how many Sharon alright so let's before we do this again for anyone who was not here at the beginning of the meeting and you wish to speak this evening I wish that you would respond when I ask you to take the mic do you swear that for any of you folks that weren't here at the beginning do you swear that any testimony you present this evening will be truthful to the best of your abilities I'd like to hear an audio response please yes and in the room too yes thank you and one last question this is Ken Keft at 900 Road and I say yes also thank you Ken telephone number on here but it's gone okay so before we get going Darren you had some public comments yes we send these to you via email and I just want to quickly summarize one from several neighbors on stonebrook circle including Mukesh Kumar Anupam Gurg Evergreen Drive 72 stonebrook circle Sandra McGowan and Dominic Abundazza sorry about that and Patty Kleppinger 7 stonebrook circle I won't read the entirety of it but essentially some minor concerns about or some concerns about steep slope but no concern with the spirit of the proposal highlighting potential issues with thoughts 10 and 13 concerns about previous erosion and silt getting washed away into wetlands during section H and second point is that the triplexes look out of place in an extension to a neighborhood of single family homes and reference to the enabling better places guide says it doesn't talk about existing neighborhoods but do agree with not putting excessive regulation on new housing construction it's just a case of expanding a single family neighborhood and then see last point was asking for a connecting road between the cul-de-sac with the triplexes and timber lane drive as previously proposed to allow for smoother flow of traffic and safety for emergency access and that's about it okay thank you so with that we will take questions from the audience those that are online again as Darren indicated please use the reaction button on the bottom of your screen and select to raise your hand in the room please raise your hand it will be recognized you and identify if you can just state your name for the record when we come up and ask your questions please our audio gentleman would like you at the table please name and address would be good touch that um Michael Guernsey 9 Evergreen Drive I looked at this I apologize we only moved into town year and a half ago but I we came from South Hero I was on the west regional planning commission for 22 years I'm a past chair so I'm sort of familiar with this process my first question to you is we have just formed the homeowners association with the first part of nature's way which is 39 houses and is this new development however it gets is that are they going to be another part of the same homeowners association or are they going to develop a new homeowners association for this section I don't know if you can answer it right now I don't recall seeing any commentary to that this point typically those details get presented at final plan review but I would defer to the applicant if they haven't answered that question right it'll be its own homeowners association and the client would manner has a master HOA that all the sections made here do they do but it's more of a voluntary status right but they would have their own private driveways they would have their own storm motor facilities anything that would go into the construction of these homes that isn't owned by the town would be part of the HOA right so what this brings up is that my lot is right at the corner of the upper side and half of one of the retention ponds is on my property so you are adding a lot of area a lot of roadway which is going to contribute to the storm water and so I little curious is how the storm water especially on the public roadway I assume it's catch basins and piping that ties into the this thing of storm water system that's on this area this is me right here once you put up the plan will it staff do you want me to? we'll observe the propriety details like storm water design are typically presented at preliminary I do know that the slopes actually go a little bit over the hill for a lot of these but I'll defer the details to the applicant so this is a concern because the homeowners association has just been formed for nature's way we are responsible for the maintenance of two retention ponds so if this development is going to be contributing I think a significant amount of storm water I would hope that they would be part of the organization that maintains the storm water I mean you know the engineer comes he just came out a little while ago and he has to certify that he has inspected it and everything's the way it's supposed to be but we also know that over the years it's going to silt in and it's going to have to get dug out and so my question is whether they are going to either have their own storm water system with retention ponds or are they going to be bringing in their storm water into our system and we're going to get stuck with the bill to maintain it well I think as Darren indicated the storm water would be part of the next level of review so good questions and good commentary feedback I don't want to answer so the section 8 storm water ponds are under an old storm water rule that is no longer in effect the likelihood of us even approaching the HOA to use their storm water ponds or make them larger is very small our previous rendition of section I we had a storm water pond in this area right here and that would be my intention to use that flat space there for storm water retention so it wouldn't be likely that we would even ask to use that HOA storm water facilities so the public road which is going to have catch basins and what not is going to go into a new retention pond and not tie into the existing catch basins that are up at the end of the existing stone room that's what he's indicating so far that's fine with me if he does it that way question on the public road ways are going to be sidewalks everything else in the neighborhood has sidewalks those are our standards public roads has specifically recommended an 8 foot wide sidewalk and sidewalks are typically required for new public roads in this zoning so there will be a sidewalk up to the cul-de-sac correct so down to the cul-de-sac connecting to stonebrook outside and right now there exists a walking trail from the end of stone stonebrook up to ember lane and if you have a walkway there's a lot of people that use it so if you have sidewalks up to the cul-de-sac is there going to be any kind of a trail that goes from there over to the end of ember lane a lot of people use it right now it's full of deer ticks but the dogs don't like it particularly so that's not included in the proposal it's something that could potentially be considered I do know that for some other applications we've had in other areas having public trails sort of densely clustered triplexes can be a little intrusive for the folks who live there so if there were a way to root such a trail without those impacts that would be ideal but I would defer that to the applicant to present something so we also have to be conscious of whether or not something is identified as a trail already and if it's just an informal trail that folks have developed on their own doesn't mean it's necessarily going to stay it's just nice to have it there but um so now we get into the snow removal aspect on the public road and I know towns hate cul-de-sacs because if you get a huge snow storm it starts to fill in in the front of what's going to be the triplexes we're going to have mountains of snow in front of them unless there's some way to push it out and then where do you push it I know there's some spaces in there and would there be a plan for the town to push the snow away there without bringing it back out on the stone brook if it's public road it'll be public works to decide how they do that we won't that won't be that's not part of our purview to come up with private road we might ask but um public road where we would defer to public works and if I'm off on that correct me but I think it's important to consider how that would be done but ultimately public works design has the road designs to accommodate snow removal and they see all this they see all these coming and I know I think the last one they made that generally they hate cul-de-sac for snow removal so the storm water stuff is all taken care of on lot 23 you is ember lane drive in itself going to be extended to lot 23 or is his driveway going to cut across lot 24 I would have to defer to the applicant on that and the other question a lot of these lots is as I read what the template says on here that zoning information that minimum lot frontage is 75 feet and that frontage on what because some of those other houses on the private drives I don't know what the frontage is a frontage on the private drive the town regulations do read that even with reduced frontage there needs to be frontage on a public road is that's how we've typically enforced that with planning and development sometimes there is some flexibility as to how that's done particularly on the edges of curves and cul-de-sacs one of the things in this proposal that's not typical is to have private roadways with lots without frontage sometimes that's allowed in the scenic resource overly district that's not applicable here but the applicant has proposed this as a corollary to avoiding an impact of you know steep slopes as opposed to scenic resource so that is up for consideration by the planning commission as a waiver specifically as part of the PUD in order to meet other goals but you're correct that some of those lots do not have frontage on a public road as typically required there's lots five and six as you show I mean I don't have a scale but 789 looked like they might have frontage on the private road whereas five and six they don't have frontage on anything so I just question how they do the 75 foot frontage it would be a waiver if that was approved by the planning commission and let's see we got rid of all that lots one to four and I only speak of this from experience in many years ago I'm 81 so I've been around for a while lot one is that driveway coming off the private roadway or is it going to come off of the end of stonebrook circle I have to defer to the applicant on that I'm not actually sure how far the stonebrook circle right of way extends and if that's proposed as a continuation up to sort of the edge of lot one or if it's all private roadway the right of way goes all the way to the back here so this is dedicated to the town but the unit will be accessed off of the private driveway as we have it shown right technically it has frontage driveway will just be for the and the reason I asked that is because I've gone through it the Vermont law there is a law that says anybody living on a private road like that is equally responsible for the maintenance of that roadway but if lot one is part of that I know he's going to complain when the owner is going to complain but you throw the state law so would there be something in the covenant that will exist for those private ways will it be a special note that says all four houses are equally responsible for the maintenance of that private roadway it's just a comment I've seen this problem over the years in many things that I've done even in Northwest Regional and I guess my last question is and it's probably Dr. Brian what's going to happen to the nature's way sign at the beginning of this it says 39 houses is it going to be 63 houses is it going to be taken away somehow modified but I mean it's just there and taken away that's fine easy and I thank you for your patience and listening to me thank you for bringing it to our attention I appreciate it next on the line is looking for hands up here I think Alan was up first online then you next in the back sir Alan Botella okay thanks can you hear me yes great so my name is Alan Botula I'm here on behalf of the Essex Conservation and Trails Committee so thanks for allowing me to speak with you tonight this project came up review for review at our meeting earlier this month and the committee has some concerns to such a degree that we wanted to make a formal communication to the planning commission I think our letters in the record briefly first from a practical standpoint the topography of the area is really unsuitable for housing development it's primarily on steep drainage land it's going to require a lot of excavation fill and grading you can have steep lots, steep roads, steep driveways that's going to cause erosion stormwater snow clearing and maintenance issues I think what often happens is these problems end up redounding to the purchasers of the properties itself through taxpayer expense second point is that from a conservation wildlife ecological standpoint this development is going to be placed on what's indicated is prime forest land so this topography is very unsuitable for housing as you can see lots of hoops having to be jumped through and a lot of work trying to figure out how to make this thing work as a housing development it works great as a forest it's providing wildlife habitat it's providing natural erosion stormwater control trees and plants for carbon capture and it's a beautiful place that can be enjoyed by Essex residents part of this development displaces a deer shelter reserve area and part of it displaces an existing wetland further it's contrary to the objectives it's located in Vermont's Act 171 which tries to preserve wildlife habitat in forest blocks which this is one third point is from an aesthetic standpoint this is currently an area that provides a visual and sound buffer between the houses and the existing development and the circumferential highway and so this development is going to adversely affect residents in their area by reducing that buffer and I think it's detrimental to all the residents in the town because it's impacting prime forest land for really a fairly small gain in housing stock so we're not against all development conservation and trails community supports smart development on land that's suitable for the purpose but I think we think we should endeavor to preserve to whatever extent possible the natural beauty and woodlands that serve wildlife and make Essex an attractive place to live and we should avoid developing land that will just by its nature exacerbate stormwater and erosion problems that are further harming rivers and streams we also shouldn't be approving projects that adversely affect quality of life for existing residents and we think that there are much better options for providing housing in Essex town so thank you for your time thank you Alan sir in the back of the room Alan if you could unraise your hand when you get a chance then keep track of who's still you thanks sir yes my name is David Scopen I live at 11 Skyline Drive and I want to thank Alan for what he just spoke of because steep slopes has never been anything but an extremely small portion of the overall problem of this development in my estimation as an arborist and respiratory therapist what is really concerning is climate change so I would really like to know from you all the commissioners have you taken into consideration the impact of any development in that area on climate change I think sir what we take into consideration primarily is what the regulations have and if we haven't built into our regulations specifically elements to address climate change I'm not sure that we I'm not sure where we can go with that we are limited by what we have for regulations so it's I mean I'm hearing you but I'm thinking your questions might actually be better put into just a second phase of review that we're starting now or working on for regulation updates and changes so continue please so what I heard you say is that I would bring this issue up later in the development of these plans is that what is that what you're saying nope I you asked if we had specific regulations to address well no I was I was wondering what sort of attitude you have concerning the impact that this development would have on climate change I mean you're in you're in you as commissioners are in a position to make a decision for the betterment of the community a town of Essex is looking to your leadership and we have we certainly are very appreciative of everything you do and everything you've done but it is a real concern to a very a growing number and 15 inches of rain is going to have a completely different effect on this development than it would than anything we've ever experienced in the past communities are preparing for what we're facing with climate change so with regards and if we're not taking that into consideration we are putting all the residents of the town of Essex in the process so as far as overall climate change as a topic just what I'm hearing you talk about that we need to enable regulations for so that is what we're in the process of also doing in addition to hearing applications we're also doing revisions to town plan revision to zoning revision to subdivision regulations that would be where we would put enabling language to allow us to provide enforcement provide future thing as far as this application goes we have what is in front of us today we have the application and we have the regulations zoning subdivision town plan those are what we have so we really don't have the latitude to go outside of that and say I'm concerned about climate change so for this application I'm going to do something off the books off our regulations so I hear what you're saying but for me like what you're aiming what you're asking are we planning for climate change this application I can't say that we're planning for climate change there will be environmental impact assessment and I believe that's that's what you guys are dealing with have to deal with anyways but specifically we don't go into this and say what's the climate effect and if I can just add a little bit to that part of the fact that this is presented as a plan in a development means that it is reducing overall impact of open space which includes the forest land which includes the stored carbon so there is actually a benefit to this application being presented the way it is compared to what it was shown earlier as the conventional prior master plan so we are gaining some mitigation of climate change or climate impacts in this proposal and yeah as Bestie said we have to go through the planning process to add climate change into our common plan and our zoning regulations so you would be able to help like I'm a member of the Essex Energy Committee and one of the things we're always encouraging homeowners to do and have had a number of outreaches in this regard is become as efficient as you can in use of fossil fuels and a lot of it has to do with the weatherization of houses so I understand that you're probably not in a position to require that yes go ahead and develop but we expect not 2x4s but 2x6s and we expect a lot more insulation and much better wrapped building so that the homeowner can afford to heat and cool as we know which will undoubtedly become more of a problem in the future I understand that I have to now work on trying to change what you have to work with because obviously if you don't have a tool like being able to say if you're not if you're not addressing climate change then you're off the table and that's essentially what you're saying that you do not have you're not in a position to make requirements outside of the law you don't have to change the law it's funny you bring that up because we've actually been reaching out to all of the other commissions including the energy commission for assistance yes you have you're on the hook oh trust me that's where I want to be and I do thank you very much for your time and the effort you put in and if I sound on occasion intense we all should be intense faced with this problem I'm not looking forward to 15 inches in six hours my house is not ready for thank you very much thank you let me get back on the line here and John, Samma, Samma how are you doing can you hear me yes great I'm calling from 26 Winder drog just wanted a few things my no opposition to the development particularly a site that there might be some affordable housing in there so that's great my biggest concern is with the loss of the Connecting Roadway to Timberlane and this development is going to effectively double the amount of traffic that's coming in and out of that Stonebrook Circle intersection which has four bus stops every day so that's a big concern and I'm also concerned that there will be 70 homes in there or whatever that there's only one way in for fire and rescue and also only one way in if the roads get wiped out so that's it I have some general questions which I think kind of got answered about the private roadways concerned about those but as long as they don't fall thank you anyone in the room yes sir ma'am sir I can't see please the chair is yours yes and in many regards I know I'm speaking to all of you but you're actually speaking to us I know yes well no I knew that okay well and Alan I want to thank you because I thought I would be the only one speaking to this issue name and address for for Sharon 11 Skyline Natalie Braun and I'm also in Pinewood obviously but I'm on the Essex Energy Committee but I'm really tonight coming mainly as a citizen of the world so we humans are really bad at responding to slow moving disasters so fortunately but wildly unfortunately the the obvious effects of climate change have accelerated so significantly in the last couple years that it no longer looks as much like a slow moving disaster and indeed it is an accelerating catastrophic nightmare for the world and for that reason we need all hands on deck all hands on deck addressing as many avenues of intervention as we have as we can possibly develop people working in the area of transportation people working in the area of managing the thermal the greenhouse gases that emerge from our thermal systems from our transportation systems people working in the area of nature based strategies and had Alan not spoken or David not spoken you might wonder where in the heavens name is Natalie going with this but it significantly relates to this proposed development in the sense that because we need everything we can possibly do at this point to address this catastrophic acceleration is that I have a modest proposal now if you're familiar with Jonathan Swift's modest proposal there's nothing satirical about my proposal and that is that nature based strategies are a significant contributor to the mitigation of climate change and adaptation to it in order to develop this so my modest proposal is not unlike Alan's I believe his was implied minus direct is to not develop this because when you develop this land you are removing a tremendous number of trees and you are moving a tremendous amount of earth and those are one of the most significant carbon sinks available to us on this earth on the planet approximately 40% of the global CO2 produced is absorbed by trees a single mature tree absorbs about 48 pounds of CO2 yearly and this is all about the CO2 in the atmosphere Brian I don't think it was your dad or grandpa was visionary in terms of keeping as many trees as he possibly could and you possibly could in Pinewood we need every tree we can lay our hands on that we can hold on to and especially mature trees it takes a long time for a tree to mature to the point that it is sequestering and storing at a really optimal rate so it may seem like a small thing to preserve this particular woodland and again my proposal is don't touch it however it is the aggregate efforts of all of these small acts done around the world addressing desertification all the tree planting efforts all of the trees are one of the major nature based strategies regenerative agriculture is also another one that we're working on in Vermont it is all these small acts you might think what does it matter it's just a small thing we need every small thing that we can do done around the world to address this accelerating catastrophic so let me jump in for a moment I appreciate the passion that you bring into this and I'm actually glad to hear that you're on the energy committee again as with the gentleman before you that's the route to bring this more global concern what I've heard with regards to this application is that you would support not moving forward with it then let's leave it at that it would be a great contribution to climate change mitigation thank you online Debbie hi this is Peter Thomas 79 stonebrook circle and I I'm life go ahead so yeah Debbie lives here too she's in the room with me so my concern and my first thought I'm probably echoing a lot of what John said before is that you know I take a look at that I see a whole lot of new houses being added with only one way out and that's stonebrook circle so I really couldn't quite understand I understand you know a lot of the issues that appreciate the efforts to mitigate the problems with the steep slopes and the stormwater and all that kind of thing but it seems to me that there's a couple of things that have already been mentioned about the access and I would strongly prefer there be some kind of connection back to Timberlane just because you know you'd have so many more houses with people that only have one way to get out both for you know emergency services but also for daily traffic school buses etc so it's basically a traffic impact that seems like you'd be creating a problem here thanks thank you anyone else in the audience here anyone else online Emily I'm like Cal Hay from 74 stonebrook circle and I'm going to do what everyone else is doing but just echo the sentiment about the traffic flow through stonebrook circle I'm at the corner there and I'm the mother of two very young kids and my biggest concern is certainly safety with the amount of traffic that this will create coming through so only one outlet in and out is definitely my biggest concern I do want to say that I fully support this development I think we're all aware that this would be coming when we moved in and built our beautiful homes here and truly appreciate the opportunity to raise our children in ethics so you know I don't want to tender development I just want to make sure that safety is you know a nice place to continue raising our young children we're doing our best to keep them out and play and teach them that you know cars can be coming in and out but also emergency vehicles and their access to to folks in the high dense tri-plot area so I just wanted to add my name to that that concern and that's really all I have to say thank you Darren you hit something you wanted to add yes I just responding to the concerns about traffic from the public folks have spoken traffic assessment is a requirement of preliminary reviews so there will be a full report on how much impact this would create and safety and avenues of access and so forth so just want to note that that is heard and will be addressed at the next stage review if this proposal moves forward Mr. Micah I have a question for you when was this development first started and how many phases were anticipated when it was first started when your dad first got this going again in 1958 and then at that time we thought some phases maybe bigger there was no set number of phases but substantial amount of phases it was anticipated right along though when was this master the current master plan last ratified in 2003 so it's been on the books for a long time that this has been anticipated so we're on section I it did start at A I get that question a lot and there's one potential phase after this so this would be the second to last it was always based on the overall size and how the segments there would fit thank you okay I'm gonna John Zimmerman thank you just a quick question for the developer what happens to you mean the commission sorry whomever we direct all all all questions come to the commission and then we go to staff and applicant is just the procedural sorry I'm sorry I'm at 42 stonebrook John Zimmerman thank you I just like to know what happens to all the land that's not owned by the owners of these lots all you know all this other area here and what happens to it there so John typically in a planning development where there is open space that open space is typically kept by the HOA and maintained jointly by everyone because there's still future lands it's not part of or additional land it's not part of this proposal that would be retained by the developer at this point but could be part of the future phase but it's up to them if they want to retain that land seeded to the HOA try to give it to the town that's typically what happens but ultimately that's up to the developer and how they want to proceed with it I would just be concerned about you know the need for erosion control of those lands or I don't know maintenance of it something under the PUD rules has to have some sort of maintenance plan or at least an oversight of who is in charge so that would be part of this proposal probably presented at the final stage of review thank you but these are all good questions these are all things that start to drill through David so the typical would be that each owner would have one 34th ownership of the common land and responsibility for that common land that's the way every PUD has done cluster minimize part of the reason for the triplexes is not that there was a huge desire for triplexes it's gone from 62 units down to 49 now to 34 so it would be less than 34 without those so it's a way to still make it a viable project with the cost to do the infrastructure but each owner would have one 34th interest in the common land and maintenance of it the town of Essex owner owns a parcel abutting the common land to the north there's comments from the rec department but we haven't determined what we're going to do with it yet good, thank you the Harveys I don't think it was Jill, was it Joe? Jill Jill and Joe were both there so okay can you hear me? we can I was wondering what type of soil is in this new part meaning clay soil, sandy soil how it will handle rain I'm just wondering how it will handle this heavy rain that's going to be coming down already is coming down and how that's going to affect the existing wetlands start to answer but ultimately I would defer to the applicant as sort of the experts on the site in engineering the soil types are Agawam D which is a seeper's lobe Agawam E, even more steep and then Adams D wow, I'm actually going to refer to you guys to know this stuff better it's kind of a soil composition that's fairly unique to Saxon Hill in this area of Essex there's a layer of sand above it it varies depending upon where you are on the site but generally underneath there's a silty base layer below it so it's kind of that weird combination where you have sandy soils but there's also wetlands you don't see that too often do you expect a lot of runoff into the wetlands the runoff I don't I believe you guys will be presenting a plan for capturing all that runoff we'll have to have a state stormwater any plan now over half acre of impervious requires a state stormwater discharge permit that's what the town relies on for stormwater and you want water to continue to go to wetlands or there won't be wetlands okay thank you okay thank you don't see any more hands raised online any more questions in the audience okay I'm going to hold public questions for the time being and bring it back to the table for the commission let's go around the room and the virtual room I'm going to start with Tom thoughts we haven't talked about shared driveways yeah are we prepared to allow a lot of units on a single driveway yes sir I had more approval conditions to go through and one of them was that well let's talk about shared driveways Tom brought it up so let's talk shared driveways okay so approval condition line 542 page 15 2B revisions to design a private roadways that meet the requirements of the standard specifications for construction so we know been doing work in s6 a long time generally speaking two units are allowed off a private driveway the only exception to that rule is in the scenic overlay district they allow four units off a private driveway now the four units instead of in a scenic overlay district obviously to me seems like the goal is to preserve natural resources in order to facilitate a higher level of density right so we're in the R2 district public works is never going to take over a private driveway and if we get the sign off from the fire department we talked about potentially doing residential sprinkler systems within the residential units and providing enough access for a fire truck to get to these homes and if we get the sign off from them we don't see as part of the plan unit development and in the spirit of saving slopes and concentrating density where the flat areas are on the site where there should be development we would rather see four units served off of one private driveway rather than four units served off two private houses with fire department approval and all mitigations because that's frequently one of the concerns and the fire chief during our meeting with the applicants and they did say that would go a long way to mitigating his concern about shared roadways and public works seems to support the idea that there be fire provisions again about the letter of the law specifications are pretty specific about the two units on one driveway similarly in the zoning regulations so this would be a deviation from both practice and letter of the law so that's something the planning commission should consider as a bit of a precedent and I know you're always thinking about precedent I understand that it is a very unique circumstance but I think that's a good argument for my point of view sprinklers and conserving the natural development it's not just four units in a rule and a town where maybe you're just trying to get more density out of it we're allowed 60 units we're doing about half of that for us it's minimizing steep slope I think Darren the natural features the PUD by definition is supposed to be adaptive so in the regulations there is discussion within PUDs about private roadways and it does fairly specifically say it has to be public work specifications trying to consolidate to one point of standard and it allows for private roadways but those also have specific standards they're essentially the same design as a public road but not maintained by the town so this would be a presumably more than a two unit driveway less than a full public road or private road potentially something in between so a waiver I don't believe that the planning commission can waive the public work specifications so that is something that would need both public works and potentially approval by the select board and this could turn into a larger discussion about how driveways and roadways are designed but ultimately the question is what level of design standard is needed based on the number of units on a driveway has been a perpetual question David I suggest it's not a public works at the meeting public works they deferred to fire at that time it was all rather positive there's been a change I understand Essex is too I understand that that's the regulation outside of a PUD in most towns anyway PUD gives cart launch as far as what the board wants to do to meet the goals of a PUD which is preservation in this case the preservation comes to the forefront on minimization for all of that discussion but Essex is on their own island on two lots off of a driveway every town in Chittenden County is higher than that so it's not a safety issue as Brian mentioned because you already allow four in the conservation district so that up to four shouldn't be the question the question should be on the one driveway is that reasonable because you've already set precedent on four and I don't buy that public works shouldn't have it both ways they shouldn't say this is a private road we'll put it right in the deed that these are never to be taken over that should cut public works out of that discussion so that's something we can drill into differently I think it's not going to be resolved I don't see it being resolved with absolutes completeness tonight at this table to me the question is is that idea significantly interesting enough for us and you to pursue whether or not it's actually doable and if you want to defer that discussion to future stages potentially something behind the scenes work I'd suggest removing that condition to be from your approval and it can still be addressed at preliminary or final so that we don't get hung up on that as they're drawn right now they're 16 feet wide so that just gives you an idea not many driveways are 16 feet wide it's already designed for a WB40 turning movement which is essentially with the prior department likes to see for access so it's really it's not so much the intent of regulation I think we understand that and appreciate the goal is for fire protection is the main goal is for preservation but it isn't a question of just doing all the nice things like that it's really a question as can we so let's keep going around the room Tom are you all set with that for the time being yes I am okay next commissioner on the list unless somebody wants to volunteer John mangan sorry you weren't quick enough I don't have any anything coming on just okay Josh go through the got it broadly speaking I'm supportive of this going on a preliminary because I think there are a lot of things that are really under a condition to and maybe we'll remove to be and make that into a finding to raise a preliminary but if they're willing to bring this to preliminary to address those issues knowing that that doesn't guarantee an approval from us we're just moving it on from sketch I'm okay with this moving on that's what I got David I would ditto Josh's comments I definitely have concerns over the steep slopes but if those can be addressed in the next phase then I'm comfortable moving this on I am concerned about number of dwellings on a driveway just based on past applications and discussions so that's something that to Darren's point if we can work that out in the background but if we open that door there's a lot of parcels and Essex that could put one or more dwellings on a what is currently a two driveway private roads so those are my main concerns at sketch John Big John Oh me, yeah I guess I want I don't really have any comments this time but I would like to know if Brian has any more issues with any of the conditions do we get through them all I don't know, good question I got a couple I'd like to hear those before we get further I guess just one last thing in the driveway if it is determined that the fire department's okay with it we find out it's not a zoning hurdle that needs to change you know is the planning commission you know, okay with more than two units off the driveway I'm kind of hearing both sides here you're going to hear both sides of it let's get all the other items on the table let's go with that two C inclusion of an eight foot wide pedestrian path that meets all current requirements of the American Disabilities Act located along the south side of the proposed public road linking the residential units to the existing pedestrian network of Pinewood I would suggest to go with the rec path we just want to make sure the planning commission is okay that rec path rather than a sidewalk along the public road the condition is a inclusion of it's not a recommendation or a suggestion it's a requirement is the way I read it so we just wanted to get input from the planning commission that can we do a sidewalk and this was a specific part of public works memo that we copied in so that's for context I guess I would wonder why I would wonder why when we're doing sidewalks throughout the rest of the development that we would go different here it's a should if you look at line 340 to 343 it's become a should to a should without discussion I did talk to Darren before and I under the impression that the 8th foot if the planning commission supports it could be struck at this time it may end up being 8 feet but if you go to line 340 to 343 that condition doesn't match it and staff would be okay with striking the specific 8 foot part of that and just saying we want a sidewalk but we'll figure out the design details of preliminary okay not yet and this is paved versus concrete we want to finish up the rest of the things and we'll jump in Brian you get more on the conditions F drafts of state permit applications including but not limited to those required for wetlands and stormwater elements something unique usually those are required draft permits usually there are conditions of approval prior to zoning permit issue zoning permit issuance we have to go through active 50 the project won't be constructed without state permit applications the one I mentioned earlier that we will voluntarily get if you would like us to prior to preliminary is the one that deals with erosion control but it's just more design work more cost earlier on in the process then we're typically comfortable doing and this is unique for a sketch plan application I feel and I don't feel it should be requirement Aaron that came from you guys so yeah and this was again in response to the concern about erosion and stormwater just sort of wanting to see that is more of that design upfront but if as you say you're going for a state permits you'll have you might be getting the construction permit early that mitigates some of our concerns no objection to striking that as submission for preliminary it will come as normally required yeah just the replace it with what you're offering to put right the erosion control one is specific to construction erosion the stormwater permit won't look at construction erosion it will look at once everything's constructed how the stormwater system functions wetland permits will look at if we're impacting wetlands how much and functions and values they won't look at construction erosion I feel they're just different issues and no objection to striking that at this stage any other comments for the what's left 3 pursuing of section 5B of the subdivision regulations in section 7, 8B going through the whole thing this is in relation to geotechnical engineer planet commission staff raises has the ability to ask for technical assistance outside of town departments if they feel it's above their area of expertise public works has indicated this we're applicable to working with a geotechnical engineer as part of our application rather than putting it up to the planet commission whether or not they'd like us to consult with one or not there's a lot of design work that goes into preliminary I'd much rather have the recommendations of a geotechnical engineer before final plan is created for preliminary and have it reviewed as part of the review process then while I'm doing the design if you're telling us that you're going to use a geotechnical engineer as part of the submission for preliminary this is moot but if it's in there it doesn't have any effect it's really just as a catch-all case for some reason you don't so I don't see that being a conflict at this stage if you do that and it's acceptable to public works and staff then preliminary that condition goes away exactly and the one thing we'd add to that is to make sure that public works is in the loop about the process and the engineer whenever you do that whether it's preliminary or post preliminary pre-finals I don't think there is specific concern about when that happens from them I'd like to do it before a full plan set is designed this isn't telling you not to, this is just saying if you don't then we may tell you to do it I was just responding to it okay wait a minute, there's number four either David didn't teach you well or Patty, questions for staff or applicant? well, I guess the applicant I want to say that I would feel personally better if you did get this qualified technical person before you move on because I also feel that a wet land a qualified wet land expert should be part of their resume whoever that person is just because I researched the past issues that happened in Stonebrook the homes that are there existing and the erosion issues were so bad that I know you said you get state permits before you build you have to have these state permits I don't know if you have to have them every year or you have to renew them but even for the existing homeowners that now live there, erosion is definitely a really big issue and that's my biggest concern, what can you tell me that would alleviate my concern other than getting this wet land specialist because I did a bio finder map of all the wet lands on my own and so I'm looking at that. Okay, so the wet lands were delineated by a fistrel environmental in 2020, they've already been reviewed and classified by the state wetlands program classified and confirmed by the state of Vermont so the wetlands they're good for five years so what we're showing our plan is accurate and basically that's what we'll go by when we move to state permitting and if we need to impact for any wetlands or buffers, class 2 and greater are regulated by the state and the town we'll need to get permits in order to... Do you have to have those permits renewed like something for erosion and something for storm water, are they all different permits that you get every year? Yep, so the storm water permit is good for I believe it's five years and then the erosion control permit is good for there's different levels, likely this would be a moderate risk project which is good for five years and the wetlands permits, the delineations are only good for five years so those are only good for five years as well. If the construction lasts longer than five years including house sites you would need to reapply for a new erosion control permit the state storm water permit you need to file renewal applications whenever they expire five years and you might have seen in the news that the state is really cracking down on what they're calling 9053 acre sites so anything with a permit eventually may be being brought up to compliance, something the town is dealing with right now. So storm water permit is ongoing the wetland permit is only during construction and the erosion control permit is during construction as well. Thanks. As far as the erosion piece of it and you're comparing Section H to this version of I we just showed the master plan Section H was part of that master plan done in 2003, this is a very different proposal in Section H. The topography is very different than 2003. Section I is much more general than Section H. It's a much different proposal in Section H. But I'm just saying even though you cut back the topography master gardener saw my soil into the sedimentary rock and we talked about the soil it's mainly silt that's washing down with the erosion underneath the gravel and sand. I live on hillside circles so I know I live on a hill. Basically. So, there you go. Okay, so let's circle back. Anybody in the audience here have any questions? Anybody online have any questions? Not seeing any raised hands if anybody has all right. With that commissioners before we close the public hearing just one final pass around anybody have any major concerns. I do have one item that I wanted to touch on is we talked about having a connection up to the town parcel. You guys didn't touch on that at all during the discussion phase. Is that something you want to keep on the table? Do you want to say no to? I would defer to Brian it's something we can definitely talk to the department about if there's a way to get a trail over to that northern corner. So, from my perspective at a sketch level I would like to see something come back at preliminary and it's either you guys be absolute with your negating it or a proposal to do it. And just to be clear that's something that we're looking on the town plan and hoping to keep those connections but if the applicant determines that it's going over really steep topography or through wetlands it's just not feasible. We're okay saying that's not going to work but we'd like to have it explored if possible. And our understanding Dusty is the requirement as far as the regulations is that if this is one we're talking about town plan shows it and the request is for the easement not for the trail. We will absolutely provide an easement at the best location. It may be that we provide the easement and we are proposing to build the trail because of minimization but what I would like to have come back at preliminary assuming this goes forward is something addressing that hopefully in a positive way whether it's an easement whether it's a trail if there's already one there that can be improved so I don't really at this level I'm not concerned about what comes I just want to see something come back. Right. I'd be leery if it's similar to what was stated in section H where we had to build the bike path of the lane farm we were it wasn't our first choice we were required to do that and it was right along a stream very steep slopes tough soil we ended up mitigating we ended up using a type 2 rip rat on we went through great lengths to try to stabilize it. It was never our intention to go that way but we were required again for the connectivity and the greater good of all but that was a lot of erosion up in that area and it was it didn't sit well with me having to do that area we did our best with what we were given and we went beyond with a lot of stone. With respect to those considerations and we've had other areas where we've had concerns about wanting a trail in a particular and not being feasible all I'm looking for for myself is to have an acknowledgement of that come back to a resolution in some form or fashion whether it be no we can't do it in any way shape or form or here's an easement if there's a way to build it in the future great I'm not overly concerned about that piece right now I want to get that acknowledgement Dusty just Brian hit on it and Darren did too but I guess the a little bit in my opinion the elephant in the room is the past process so the past process the board approved and then it was withdrawn but it was withdrawn because it was likely headed to a denial the staff did not support that application staff has recognized the minimization in this I don't know if supports the right word but they feel that it's been on a stepper and there's a significant amount of cost again that Mr. Mark has to go through so I think I'm hearing you know address the specific items on this driveway in this can the board give us a straw poll or whatever on whether or not they generally agree with staff that this is an approval project not just sketch well let's get to that after we close public hearing we get all the questions on the table and I think that will be the next round of discussion all right thank you good level we're not seeing any hands in the room don't see any hands on the screen and I'm not overly good at watching but can I ask a follow-up question it's not really a question I'm just going to ask Brian if you don't mind could you for some people don't understand this the stormwater erosion the permit process they're open for five years but you close them out at a certain period of time if you don't renew them correct do you end up with an inspection or anything like that so the state stormwater reports require annual inspections there's an annual operating fee associated with it it gets more and more every year the erosion control permits are only while we're under construction that would be the difference of the two and those don't require annual inspections it's ongoing state to site visits the town to site visits we have plans that we have to follow can I ask why is that I mean especially this topography you would think that that second one you just said about the erosion that there would be somebody to come out and inspect so many years later you know what I mean like the state inspection stormwater that if they come and inspect you said yearly but this other after oh you said it's only during construction that the erosion erosion is looked at in relation to the stormwater system that's covered under your state stormwater discharge permit so if there's erosion to the pond or the sediment in the pond so it is covered on an annual basin but it's not the narrow focus of that permit we're looking at other things is there a tree growing in the pond is the outlet structure clogged it's not just the sole focus of the state stormwater inspection erosion control permit when the site is at its most vulnerable that is the specific point of that permit hmm interesting there's also the Act 250 permit Patty which would cover your question I think after the construction general yeah I just worry about homeowners that a year later they have to spend $30,000 because all the silt and sand and gravel is barreling down the road I'm just curious how it works so thanks so at this point I would like to close the public hearing so that we can commission can move forward into the deliberations on the next what we're going to do with this tonight so I would take a motion to close the public hearing I move we close the public hearing I'll second seconded by first moved by Josh seconded by Patty we're closing the public hearing I I proposed motion carries 7-0 public hearing is closed commissioners at this point this is sketch we've got to decide if it to David's prompting in question is this something that we feel can go forward I will say that to me the the three items that I haven't seen complete clarity on yet are the driveways which I think that everybody's been pretty clear the continued impact on slopes which I think we're going to have something on and related to the slopes is the erosion we've got potential mitigation on the driveway issue by having the fire departments and internal sprinklers addressing the fire concerns which are some of the major concerns we've heard from public works and fire that they need to be able to access the spaces so I mean it feels to me like there's some room there but still is a question of whether or not we can with you know whatever what can we not just do we want to second comment on some of those things briefly I think with respect to slopes and stormwater and erosion with what the applicant is talking about with the geotech work the potential to get a general construction permit early and knowing more about the topography of the individual sites still of concern lots 10, 13, etc staff would be okay with you know moving this we're okay moving that forward with a little more detail on that as an overall project they are addressing those concerns the driveways are something that we would like to get clarity on from public works before we give a whole lot of you know green light to having those expenses because we wouldn't why should come back to hear you got to completely fix those driveways because they're not going to work so that's something that we can try to address post sketch approval before preliminary work gets started it's a really it's a legal issue as opposed to a design issue well it's a little bit of a design issue but it starts with a legal question and that's for public works and potentially the select board to address if the planning commission is okay with it from the perspective of zoning well let me let's go around the room and just sort of get a do a temperature check on the commission on the application in general we know that there are items that that nobody is going to be completely comfortable on right now but this application in general are we supportive of it at all I think is the is for where we're trying to get to first here you folks on the actual let's start in the room this time I was starting the line patty this is this is not a motion this is this is really just a temperature check okay is the the the downside more than the upside right now now just from the less conversation and the questions you've answered I definitely agree with the staff report as written okay so in your case you think this can move forward for additional this is what we're trying to I'm just trying to get right now this is not this isn't even the staff report is like do you feel and you want to know how I feel okay I had to write I didn't mean that I didn't write that open I do not believe this proposal her at this point protects existing adjoining homes or protects the town what is not clear or absent for me is how this potential erosion stormwater impacts and forest integrity and the wetlands integrity would be impacted so that's where I'm at so I'm worried about trees falling things like that and I'll come back to you in a moment that's it you're not off the hook yet true I am I am supportive of this going forward I think my my concern that actually just in the last few minutes was really thinking about the driveway issue I don't want to move forward necessarily if we can't give a clear answer on that and I don't know why I changed my tune all of a sudden but I'm concerned no if we go ahead and tell them go ahead and they go and get their permit and then they come back and we get an opinion and says no we definitely can't give you more than two on a driveway then that's not right we would like we would much rather take continuance than let's keep going around the room before you offer an option that's right gentlemen online one of you gets to choose this time this is this is David so I mean you guys know me I'm all for the ability to develop where we can there's just to echo shoes comments there's just some big open items that I kind of want to get some more answers before sending the applicant down a costly path okay so the drive the driveways I can see that if we have the sprinklers and we have fewer driveways to protect the slopes it seems like that's the reasonable reason to have a waiver but I think Darren's proposal to get a quick answer from public works is a good idea I'm very interested in having a path to the town plot back behind I still think there's going to be an issue with some of the individual lots I would vote to approve that sketch John or Josh I'll go I would to sort of answer what Mr. Burke said I would say broadly speaking the question was broadly speaking is this an approval thing I would say yes from the perspective of moving it from sketch preliminary again my view at preliminary is largely dependent on 2a and 2b those conditions and the resolutions of them and I'm sensitive to shoes point that maybe we don't get to preliminary because 2b needs to be resolved beforehand and we need a continuance but broadly speaking I'm okay with with moving this on and I like the general tenor of the project if that's what we're talking about John yeah can you hear me okay Dustin yes similarly to what others have said on the drive the shared drive two houses versus four I think that's worth it'd be nice if we could dive into that as a group because this has come up several times the kind of way the pros and cons but that's separate from this discussion but that's something that stays as a concern of mine as well as and I know we said this is not our purview but the limited access to the neighborhood I'd want to make sure we keep a close eye on public works responses just to make sure there's nothing overlooked because that's certainly as possible by anybody and I just want to say thanks to the applicants for the considerable amount of work that obviously went into this since the last time it was brought before us so I would generally be in favor of moving forward with it okay thank you so I kind of feel that the slope the erosion the wetlands the trails that's all engineering to me the piece that I think we absolutely need to is that piece that might be the legal which is the driveways the shared driveways so I'm hearing that you guys don't necessarily want to go to preliminary with that as a open question but I don't think we have the information in front of us tonight to make that that determination so echoing what you started to offer I would actually think we should continue this to a date to be determined by staff and applicant when that question can be resolved and if it can't be resolved then as part of this sketch you can come back with it with a revised driveway plan I do feel that the the erosion the slopes all that is an engineering feature function and I think there's enough there's enough concern that it better be a darn good plan I don't really see that being an impediment for preliminary to me it's the driveway issue really the only solid concrete stop can I throw one other perspective into this and this is definitely a question for the applicants engineer if public work comes back and says we don't want this to be a driveway but we'd be okay if it was a private road built to town specifications would that be feasible for the applicant and an option in order to preserve those lots for both five years nine and you don't have to answer that tonight if you can't but just a thought to throw out as another question I'm gonna talk to it if you'd like quickly if you want to this is one of those things where it's engineering on the fly that could be a discussion if it's continued that's what I mean it really feels like if you think that there's a potential and you think that there's a potential for coming up with that then your sketches continue to the next planning meeting open slot and that honestly more to David Burke's point is if public work is standing by you can't waive the specs what there will be for this then they're effectively waiving something so I think I support a continuance because it feels like we're gonna have to come up with a waiver and PUD is really conceptually PUD is a struggle every single time we try to do it do we have the authority to do use a really broad stroke and design on the fly or not well I think what I'm getting at is that we do have the authority in public works specs say this could be approved as is if that's a private road built-a-town spec then the question becomes that creates more slope impact and is that okay so that's the tension that's what I was gonna say is if what we had in section I with those two Colisex at the end of those two existing those were private roads but they're built to public standards you'd be looking at something closer to that and they had much higher density personally I just assume you see if you can make this fly well we'd be more apt to do two driveways meet your regulations probably then a public road with sidewalks and everything else it becomes a cost issue so when you're serving 3-4 units as I said every town throughout Chittenden County doesn't have two as a limit and there's a reason for it there's no justification you put it in front of us that you want you want more than two right and did you if you go to public works we pretty much know what the answer is because they already flipped from the May 16th meeting but I heard legal opinion and I think that's more of the route that you need to go I need my question is not should but can that's when I'm looking at this I've heard from a number of commissioners the should is there minimize the impact to the environment you've got public works or fire that's supportive of this we've got potential mitigation on each structure so I hear a lot of good reasons to support it but can we that's my question and that doesn't prevent us from getting a legal opinion too I think we can work behind the scenes with our departments and do everything yes David so I don't know if anyone else feels this way but if we're going down the path of a continuance could I make a motion that we just go in a deliberative session for a short period just so we can hammer out a few of the open items and have a discussion amongst the commission I think we can do that and then and then come out and give the applicant clarity on what we're looking for that what you're aiming for Dave yeah I mean I'm in full support of a continuance for clarity opportunity to just deliberate a little bit just so that I'm not as confused as I am right now so with that let me since you're bringing up the deliberative piece would you anticipate us going to a continuance what I want to do is whether or not the applicant has to stay for this tonight or if they're going to if we can release them with the expectation that there's going to be a continuance and we can give them clarity following the deliberative session that's where I'm leading so the choice then would be the applicants whether or not they stay or not for this state to await what your answer is correct your closed deliberative commissioners in general do you all feel that a continuance is appropriate with the deliberative session to clarify what we want resolved or do you feel that we have enough to do a continue I just and I I'm good either way I'd say your question you would stick around I would say if there's confusion it's worthwhile to do it to make sure we get things clear so it is 805 if David are you making a motion then to go into staff I did yes I heard that David too I'll second it what that means at the end of the meeting or immediately I think immediately because they're offering to stick around what that does mean though is we will be clearing the room for the duration of the deliberative session anybody who wants to stick around is welcome to and we'll go to we'll open a room breakout room a breakout room on the zoom meeting that the commissioners will have access to so Sharon just for the public most of the time when they come right out of deliberative session they make the motion to continue and that's when you would leave anyhow so I just want to feel like you're going to be missing something and more discussion what we would come out when we come out we'll provide more of a summary of why we're going to continue this so with that all those in favor of going into entering into deliberative session I opposed we are going into deliberative session so logistically for the folks online you and so we've got that we've got moved to second to dismiss anything anybody sidewalk and then the connection to the town for us continued so it's irrelevant right yeah but if we're giving a weather report of other issues that are like a sidewalk we'd like everything else again once we would hit everything that would be triggered at preliminary it was still going to be would be triggered at preliminary so with that all shoe seconded shoe seconded it so all those in favor of the motion to continue I opposed motion to prove seven and a quarter to zero thank you thanks for the clarity that's very helpful how old is he should we call DCF now he naps during the day he's a really good napper like two and a half hours he waits for this sort of thing future commissioner do we want to touch on the operating procedures are we done for the night we've got minutes and I've got other reasons I'm uncooked as far as operating procedures go I didn't get a chance to read David's those and include David's David's comments thank you I'll take a motion on the minutes of 811 I make a motion we approve the minutes for 811 second Sean shoe seconded anyone want to offer any updates any item any of the pages on the minutes as presented both pages sorry not any of the pages both of them hearing none all those in favor of the minutes signify by saying aye aye opposed minutes carry seven zero I have two things just letting you know you're allowed one forest road is coming before the zoning board for an Airbnb and per usual we just notify you now you've asked to just be notified of it versus having them come the second thing I wanted to talk about 51 Center Road the daycare you guys recently approved some changes there was it you guys are this was it the zoning board they were approved to expand into the building so they did put a request in and I had the memo at the start of this meeting but basically the request is they want to re-side the building with vinyl siding and there's a lot of work on it it's pretty old building using colors very similar to what's there and they also want to put a little cement slot in front of the parking spaces when you come out the doors which doesn't really need your guys concern so technically it's business design control and so I guess I'm asking do you want to motion to let staff issue that with the building permit or do you want to see the type of vinyl so moved to support staff on this I think I would agree support staff on that I'll second it all those in favor aye opposed motion carries 7-0 okay yes David question I had I wasn't here at the last meeting did you bring up the questions I had asked about communication or can I bring those up now no you can bring them up so I reached out to Dustin and this is more just a request than anything else but just to kind of improve or change some of our communication between us I was disappointed to learn that there was a building dedication for Dennis Lutz and none of us knew about it or at least I didn't know about it I don't know if you told other people and just didn't tell me but I would have really like to have gone to that and following in that suit I didn't know that Diana was not going to be with us anymore so I never had a chance to say thank you and goodbye and you know even going back one step further and again I'm not holding anyone responsible but when we so was leaving I found out about that through facebook before the planning commission knew so I just think there's some room for us to learn a little more and add to that I didn't know Dina was leaving either I was on vacation and everybody else knew it but me it was a big blow so I appreciate that Dave she is still with us she went full time to public works department so so she just transferred departments as far as Dennis he had two actually had two parties one I thought was pretty publicized that was held up at the the Essex outlets the t-rex room there you know the restaurant or whatever it is now but like you there wasn't much publicity and I don't know why for the unveiling of the sign they took a sign permit out at the beginning of the year so apologies for that and we will definitely do better and I will relay that to other departments to communicate that with us I appreciate that it's just you know we grow at least I'm speaking for myself now not to be the dead horse but this many years into this you grow attached to people and Dennis and even Dina you just get used to working with people every week and if they're leaving or something special is happening it would be nice to be able to say hey so thank you if you want to look it's on our site along the lines it would be good to encourage Aaron to come visit us once in a while and not to follow Dennis's model I think we're going to have him here for this tribal issue whether in the context of an application or outside of it let's make sure we have really good open communications between him and the mission until we get somebody who pisses him off 9 o'clock so moved I'm just going to point out John's got a great background right now yes he does oh that he's also muted I'm selling advertising space that's all that's awesome I'm writing the check right now John's got a little smudge on your nose Aaron oh that's awesome I'll close in favor John sent a motion to close thank you we are adjourned