 and Stephanie Wyman. Also with us tonight is Marla Keane, our development review planner, while our zoning review planner. Jim Langen? Well, we are expecting Jim Langen by phone, so hopefully he will join us. Okay, we're going to suggest one change to the agenda tonight. Item number eight is going to move item eight up before item six and agenda item number four and five are being continued to October 19th. So we actually will be reviewing two projects tonight, which are number six and number seven on the agenda. So I'd like to ask that people sign in on the sign-in sheet at the back of the room, and if you're attending online, please sign into the chat room so that we know you're a participant for any future actions you would like to take. And also, we ask that you, if you're not speaking, turn off your camera and turn off your video, no, audio, sorry. If you want to speak, turn your camera back on and raise your hand and we will now do it. And typically, we go over the staff report for every project, the board engages with the applicant, and then we ask the public to say hello. So I just saw a hand go up, Sharon, yes. I just wanted to make sure you understood we're here for item nine. Is that not being covered? No, item eight, does that mean not being covered tonight then? Item eight as it turns out will not be. Okay, great. Is the board will decide in a few minutes what date they're going to continue it to. So if you want to stick around for the next five, 10 minutes, you can find out when to tune back in. Perfect. And then is there a way that we can find out more about it? Like, do we ask you or do we call Larkin? I just didn't know the right procedure because we don't really understand. If you send me an email, I would be happy to get you whatever information you're looking for. And I can actually, Delilah, would you mind putting my email address in the chat box since you're logged in? Thank you very much. S-U-R-L. We ask that you refrain from conversation in the chat box because it doesn't, it isn't part of the public record, more for administrative use. I will ask if there are any comments. Well, maybe let's do emergency procedures. So, emergency procedures. The front door is to your right as you exit the auditorium. There's a back door to your left if both of those are unavailable. If you go down the hall out the left door and there's another back door by the senior center also to your left. Are there any comments or questions from the public that aren't related to the agenda? Hearing none, let's move on to item number eight. So, we do need to decide whether to accept the continuation request for four and five. Okay. Do we vote on that? Yes. Okay. I would entertain a motion to accept the request for continuation for items four and five. I just want to discuss a little bit. Sure. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Alyssa. Go ahead. Yeah, I just, what are the, since I'm relatively new to the board, what are the standards for requesting continuance? Applicants send me a written request. We recommend that they send a date that they would like to be continued to and then there is a $50 continuation fee, which we waive often when they're extenuating circumstances, such as something out of the applicant's control. Does the board ever take test only because I don't know how much notice there was provided and I saw all Facebook posts about hey, dog park, you know, and so I just wanted people wanted to talk about it or provide, is the board able to take testimony or? Yeah, the board can take testimony. It would be part of the record. I, but you do need the applicant to have an opportunity to respond to the testimony. So we would just have them read the minutes and provide their response. I just wondered if there are any people in the building or online who wanted to say something about either the two applications, you know, briefly, obviously understanding which you never know if they'll have a chance to testify again or so. So I would note that both four and five, it was in the warning that they'd be continued. So, you know, people can also provide written testimony and they did know as of Friday that that would be the case. So I think that's a good question, Dan. So, pardon me, let's just take a pause and ask if there are any members of the public who were intending to make comments on item four or five items four and five, who would like to do that tonight, as opposed to waiting till October 19 hearing none. I guess we'll move on to item number eight. We have to vote. We have to vote. Okay. Are there any other items of discussion for this motion? All in favor of the motion vote aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Oh, there's Jim. Jim, just come in. The motion is carried. No, I've been on. Okay. Now moving on to item number eight. Item number eight is the miscellaneous permit application MS 2104 of Larkin realty for stream alteration and stormwater drainage modifications at 1195 Shelburne Road. Can I make an introduction? You may. So the applicant today requested a continuation they did not have a date in mind. I would recommend to give them time to continue to October fifth, which will be not the next schedule date for the date after. And do we need to vote on that? You do. I also have a second observation. Okay. I received a comment letter from Thomas and Kathy Easton about this project. I will paraphrase and then I will send it to the board and it will be upon the website with the packet at a later date. I'm just going to paraphrase what they said. They live in Holmes Road. They try to pay attention to the DRB, but they're unable to attend. They wanted to let the board know that the Holmes Road neighborhood is interested in MS 2104 and continue to follow the progress of the application as well as subsequent development of property. And you will send that out. I will send that out. Okay. I would like to entertain a motion to move agenda item number eight to the October fifth development review board meeting. I'll go ahead and make that motion. Are there any seconds? Second. Discussion? All in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Great. Thank you. Stephanie can join us. And now we're moving on to agenda item number six. Jim, I know you're recused from this. Are there any other recusals or disclosures? Hearing none. We will invite the applicant up. Please introduce yourself. My name is Nick Smith with Lamaroe and Dickinson. Representing the applicant as the engineer. Thank you. I'm going to swear you in. There's your right hand please. You can promise what you're about to say represents the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury. I do. Would you like to introduce us to your project? We've all read the staff report. We're all familiar with it, but it's very helpful to have a little overview of applicants. Sure. Yeah. I'll just briefly go into this because I think the board's seen it quite a number of times at this point. This was the project at 47 cheese factory road. It's a 67.6 acre parcel that is being subdivided as a three lot PUD. 2.6 acre lots, lots two and three, and then the remainders of the area would be a lot one. The majority of that would be in conservation or agricultural. Since our previous applicant are previously being in front of the board for sketch plan, there were a few modifications that have come up. So I'll just kind of briefly go through those. Number one, we had met with the state wetlands program Tina Heath and the wetlands that were previously identified as class three to the west of the access was actually that was reassessed to be a class two wetland. And a wetland buffer associated with it. It's, as I'm sure you guys are aware of the, the way the state handles wetlands and agricultural use may vary from the way that the city does. So, although this is a class two wetland, the agricultural use that is currently happening is. Sorry. It's not, it's not an issue for the state. It's non jurisdictional. Also meaning that the associate wetland buffer that is attached to it is also non jurisdictional. So they have so long as there's no impact to the wetland. There's no wetland buffer, which means that the state is happy with our current proposal, which actually is relocation of the driveway, the access driveway off of cheese factory road. Approximately 30 feet to the east. So we're now avoiding the wetland. We're within the buffer still. And there's no grading. There's no other impacts the wetland. So yeah, again, there's that would mean that the state has no issues with it on as far as that's concerned. Other changes. I don't believe there's any other changes. Thanks. So, let's go through the comments. Actually, it did come to me. I forget since it has been a little while since through the process here. We actually did remove quite a bit of the storm water infrastructure. We're previously showing a bio retention. We were fairly close to the half acre so preemptively. We were going to do a whole bunch of storm water improvements. To the site, however, based on the recent modifications and kind of some previous modifications that we hadn't quite adjusted in our calculations. We're well below that half acre now. So we're just we've decided that. We'll still try to maintain as much disconnect treatment as possible, but we're. We're no longer proposing that bio retention that was actually within the well and buffer as well. So we're trying to minimize some impacts over there. Let's go to the comments. Number one, the applicant has shown what potentially appears to be a building envelope on the plans. Though it is unlabeled, the regulations do not require a building envelope. But if the applicant is asking for flexibility and locating the homes other than in. Other than in the location shown on the plans, a building envelope may facilitate that request. Staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant the purpose of the dash line on each lot and describe if their intention is to modify the buildings from the location shown in any way. So, I think that we'll ask you to respond to that and then the board can ask any questions. So, that is the intention of that dash line and I think it's labeled in the legend, possibly not called out anywhere else. So it could be, I could see where that got lost. But it is the intention that that would be the building envelope. So that we had some flexibility to cite the houses based on the wastewater systems possible movement some and some other items as far as grading and ledge in the area. So we are requesting, you know, some flexibility in the building lots those are pictorial footprints for houses. Okay. Any questions or comments from the board. Moving on to staff comment number two. And this is in regard to landscaping stormwater treatment, etc. Staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant how they have, quote, minimized and are offset by appropriate landscaping stormwater treatment stream buffering and other mitigation measures. And quote, propose wetland impacts in the context of the functions and values provided previously in the staff report. If the staff considers if the board finds a minimization or mitigation to be insufficient, there may be simple measures that can be taken to offset the proposed driveway and grading impacts. Staff recommends the board and the applicant work together to develop specific changes, if any, such that the preliminary plat hearing can be closed and the modifications addressed at the final plat stage of review. Sure. Go ahead, Dan. Did our stormwater all the quark staff have any comments on this? No, because it's under the half acre threshold. Under the half acre threshold. Okay. But the LDRs have criteria. And it's criteria are related to well. So does everybody understand kind of what happened with the wetlands and how it's non jurisdictional for the state but they're fictional for us. It's very, it took me a couple of reasons to get it. It's very channel. I mean, it's not intuitive. That's all. Yeah. The state exempt agricultural use from being considered a well. So because the wetland and its buffer currently are in agricultural use the state considers that doesn't matter that those impacts may continue or they are not. Because it remains an agricultural use. They will not take jurisdiction over the wildland. So the applicant has removed all of the proposed impacts from the well and self in order to retain agricultural. However, they have it pretend for a moment that there is a well and buffer for the purposes of the state there is not for the purposes of the city there is. They have impacts to the buffer because the wetland itself remains agriculturally exempt. The state does not consider it having a buffer, but we do. So the wetland buffer is impacted as far as the board is concerned, but not as far as the state. So the, if you can go to page 14, I believe it is the plan, you can kind of see the wetland buffer. Oh, I'm sorry. Let's try. So you can see the wetland and the wetland buffer on the plan here. Well, you could point them out. I could point it out if you'd like. Sort of straight up and down. So everything left of that yellow line is within the wetland buffer and everything right of it is not. So the staff comment here is to discuss what mitigation and minimization has been done and whether that is and whether the board considers the wetland buffer impacts to be allowable. I have a more obvious question. Is there an existing curb cut there? Like, why does the curb cut go right through the buffer? There is not an existing curb cut. The existing curb cut, you can just see it on the left of the plan. So could the curb cut be moved slightly to the east? So to the east is, and this was kind of one of the discussions we've had in the past is it's a very legible area with and we're trying to remain trying to keep as much vegetation as possible. As you get farther to the east, there's some issues to with a site distance a little bit more so not so much on this is very flat, but start getting very far east. But if we're trying to shift outside of the buffer we would be running through some of the highest ledge points we'd be removing quite a bit of existing vegetation and I think it would require quite a bit of blasting probably to get down to elevation that we would need to make the road grades work. And just for Nick's benefit, some of the members of this board would not put on the board at the time of the last year. Sorry. Other questions from the board thoughts. Do do we think that the ad the applicant has presented adequate adequate measures or would we like to see more at final plat? Is there much of a drainage that it's actually going to cross like is there going to be a cold under there? We are currently showing a covert yep and it does discharge, you can see into the wetland buffer to the southwest or to the west I guess of really that the curve. It's not a large drainage area but it's significant enough to have to have some kind of drainage and if I could just point out any mitigation that we may have done at the board teams of that. We have shifted the driveway 30 feet to to get obviously fully outside of the wetland itself, reduce impacts the buffer. We have removed the bio retention area that was totally within the buffer. We're providing some minimal landscaping out even outside of the buffer that does kind of, you know, delineate a little bit more so that area. There are options for reducing the road with, although that would probably be very insignificant as far as minimization scale. Can you bear with me for some more basic questions. Relatively speaking how far of these farm labor dwellings going to be from the farm operation. The farm operation will be all of or the majority of lot one so they'll. I'm just wondering if there was, is this the only place that the housing could be from a land from a okay to site perspective or why the lots here as a person closer to the farm building. There's a few reasons I guess the some of the bigger items were number one this where the lots are cited now is nearly unusable as far as agricultural purposes due to kind of the location and the grading and then also some of the existing vegetation and and and also the the ledge in this area so we've kind of cited them back. We've also are trying to provide some some buffering from along cheese factory road. Is there any kind of like internal farm access road or is basically anytime the workers go back and forth to their housing they're always going on cheese factory road. I would assume that they would be accessing from lot one. That would be my thought is that they're accessing off of the internal access drive that we're proposing from a lot one driveway more than likely. I want to make sure I understand so so they would have to go out to cheese factory right. I don't. I guess my under my understanding is that they would not be doing that that they would be internalizing off of the lot one driveway. The lot for this to the West there. And they would probably be accessing or off of the end of the turnaround that we're showing on the Far East. Was there an internal farm road that we're just not seeing in this drawing. Just talking about the new proposed gravel driveway the access driveway that's serving these lots. So if they want to access the fire we're talking bread and butter farm right. We're talking I'm talking this lot in particular here but. But the farm for whom they work for is bread and butter farm. So if they want to get from their house to the farm. They would then need to use cheese factory. That's what I was trying to clarify. I thought sorry I was misunderstanding this lot as far as the agricultural use on this lot they could access internally obviously anything. That's not on this lot. Yes, they would need to go on. Other questions. Anyone else. But just to clarify in the future if they did decide to construct, you know, a path or whatever through the property to the farm building. That would be agriculture. And we would never see it. Any other. Lots of people have about requirements for final plan or are we and do you have any. We're going through the rest of the questions or. The rest of the numbered statements. Red number three. No, no, I know, I know. But any other related to two. I think some of the questions asked in two are formulated slightly differently and three. Okay. All right, let's go to three. No buffering or fencing. I'm sorry. I'm horse. No, buffering or fencing is proposed. Staff considers landscaping or fencing buffers may be an appropriate measure for protection of the impacted class to wetlands buffer and recommends the board discuss whether it should be required. Board members. What do you think. To protect this was. What on quote. Regular housing. We would normally require some rudimentary delineation through. Would fans or boulders or something. Right. And without. Putting us in a, in a weird situation, this is going to remain an agricultural use of the delineation. Is not. It would would be less warranted. I would assume then it would be if it was regular housing, because there will be some access to that portion to continue for agricultural use. So. Right, it's, I guess, from my standpoint, when I think about, you know, initially, yeah, but over time and then people might be like parking pick up trucks and that'd be like sort of this drift of, and that's sort of a. Yep, I got it. Yep, quasi nebulous area where people could easily like, Oh, I'm going to park the rig here and park there. You know, again, not to say they're not aware of it, but things might change 10 years from now, people might forget. There's supposed to stay out of that. I think that's a great, great point as well. And I think we. It doesn't need to be elaborate, but just, yeah, I think the applicant would be more than happy to add maybe another set of trees just to delineate that or a little bit better and kind of restrict that so it really wouldn't be quite so. Accessible, necessarily. That's a great suggestion. Any other comments about that. Thank you for that. Moving down the reports. Number. Number four, staff recommends the board determine whether the road should be reduced to 18 feet wide. At the wetland buffer crossing. The reduction would slightly reduce wetland impacts, but its location near cheese factory road would make the turn into the private road more difficult. What's the rough distance between the edge of the cheese factory and where this would be proposed to be widened. Roughly, so where are not wide, but reduced 18 feet. I'm just trying to get a sense. Yeah, that that becomes maybe the contention is it really would likely be reduced in width for a less than 50 feet. And then it would then be outside of the wetland buffer. And I'm assuming it would be required to be back at the 20 feet access width. It would then meaning it's bottlenecking right at cheese factory road, obviously the last 50 feet of their approximately. So the reduction to 18 feet would be like in the right of way of cheese factory or it would partly be in the right of way and then it would carry problem. My assumption would be, you know, maybe a total 50 feet, maybe 25 feet past the right of way, 30 feet past the right of way. Do you have a sense of where this line would be drawn if we did the Marla. I just logged into the meeting so that I can draw. So the question is, I'm just trying to get a sense of where if we were to accept this reduction to 18 feet wide, right somewhere in the right. I'm trying to get a sense of where that would be the width of my highlighter through the well. It's fairly close to the entrance, right. Okay, I was, I was thinking if it was farther south that it would still be room for to pick up trucks to come in. But in the case that 18 feet would make it a challenge. Yeah, so yeah, and I guess I'm just briefly the assumption would be that we'd be reducing this to feet. For 40 to 50 feet ends up being kind of a negligible amount of reduction to the buffer impacts. That's all. Other thoughts about that. I feel like it's kind of standard practice from what I've seen is that when you're in a well and buffer or a well and you always try to make sense. And so it's happened a lot of officers that I've had to design that are typically 12 feet wide, we'd bring them down to 10 feet. I mean, I see what you're saying it is right at the entrance, but like how many trips are you anticipating and are you seeing a lot of conflicting in and out throughout the day where this would actually become an issue versus being able to, you know, if you did neck it down and there's not significant number of trips, it really wouldn't cause too much of a problem. Yeah, I think I think that is a valid point that there is would not be likely a lot of in and out complex. You know, I don't know what other type of equipment will be, you know, maneuvered in and around or trailers or anything like that. So the increase or the standard access with maybe have some benefit to it also for some of the larger maneuverability of vehicles and things like that but I see your point as well that there's probably not a lot of conflicts when we having three three houses on this at maximum. So, can you all think about that and when we will look at it again at final plat. Yeah, we can take a look. Something like the board. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Number five, staff recommends the board discuss whether they will require the applicant to reduce the width of the lots to meet this criterion. Staff notes the board approved the proposed lot dimension in SD 1935, but since that approval is expired, the board is in no way beholden to that decision. Okay. What do we do with this do board should we require the applicant to reduce the width of the lots. More basic question. Sure. We've got three lots here that are all supposed to be farm labor housing right owned by bread and butter farm rented to bread and farm. I don't know if that's going to be an easement or any way enforceable. Why do we have and it's all one common owner really. Why do we have, is there a way to have one septic lot instead of three, we are exploring the possibility of combining this wastewater system into one system, especially in this case where you've got quite a bit of change, you might be able to reduce a couple of tanks because there is the ability to centralize that we haven't quite gotten far enough to determine what will be the most efficient economically and generally. There's a there is a chance in the future that that would happen and it would require that we would have an easement, probably a shared easement between all the lots over that septic system. It is something we are considering it but but just have not gotten into the full design on to that on that yet. Other questions. Is it feasible to have lots fully compliant with the with lots. Can you do this with lots that are essentially half of what you're proposing because I'm looking at staff comments in the applicants proposing lots double the size. For any other applicant besides the farm we would say. Closer to the lot size. Well this is the minimum lot size correct so does it. So this is about the lot width depth ratio. And the width depth ratio is the purpose of that is to create. Lots that have sort of a neighborhood feel to them so narrow, deep lots. tend to push the buildings towards the street and people are more engaged in their neighborhood. And so I was planning on and so maybe more to this but is that generally correct. Friendlier. Right, so the idea would be having skinnier lots would make these homes closer together and have sort of a friendlier neighborhood. But given that there's only three. That's sort of the counter argument is that like why bother. And they probably know each other anyway. And we were talking. And we were talking to about the building envelopes of the building setback envelopes that we were proposing earlier so. As you can see they are pushed up towards the new access so that it wouldn't allow for these lots to be very far backward very far south I should say. So just accomplish it sounds like the goal essentially. Are we ready to move on or do folks have other questions. And I think that's. I think that's it for the staff comments. Are there any general questions or comments. Have a question for staff. Are we hypothetically approving this. As. Just single family homes that are allowed are we approving this as farm. Dwellings because they're all they're all still going to be. Owned by bread and butter right so they can't be sold right is that correct. It's not a condition of the city's approval. However in the packet the draft. Conservation easement does house some restrictions on the use of this. Subdivision let's see. I don't have that. I have it in front of me and there's. Kind of a lot of restrictions I get placed on it so I don't know where the. Page 32. This is the farm. Lamer housing paragraph paragraph 11. They can construct three residential dwellings with customary pertinent utilities and improvements. And then it lists sort of what. Shall be freely alienable. Oh wait sorry that's the access for easements and things. So it does the. The land trust conservation easement restricts the use of them. So by incorporating this into the. It would be a strict in that way. So. I guess what I'm trying to get on because I. Read all that right now and again a positive I should have read it before is. I guess the main question is like if we're approving this. We're approving the easement. I just want to be sure that this doesn't basically become open market rental. It's having its intended purpose. To serve as. Well so in the S. Q. N. R. P. That's what they're proposing but that's not what our regulations require. The S. Q. N. R. P. Says for a parcel over whatever it is 10 acres 15 acres you can subdivide up to three lots and no more ever. In those three lots can be used as single family housing and they could be sold to offset. The cost of conserving the remainder of the land or they could be retained. Or however they want to do it. So for us to. Place additional restrictions on the use of the subdivided lots. I think is. Beyond what the L. D. R. I hear you. But I also know that the city has put in a significant amount of public money. Into this property. So there's this. Quid pro quo maybe too strong a word. But. There's an expectation. The city council has talked about this property. There's an expectation of. There's the deal you guys are running a farm and in exchange. They've gotten $915,000 or something like that. So. That's why. And again, I have to read this. More clearly on the farm labor housing. If that's the intent, that's the intent. I would not want to find out five years from now that in this, this rental housing market, they're renting it. To anyone. To anyone. Exactly. That's, that's all, that's all I'm saying. And I think Brandon might be on the phone and might be able to speak a little bit more to what the, this paragraph 11 actually means. Who's Brandon Brandon. Yes. Brandon. Hi. Yep. So this was Brandon. Hi, thank you. I'm going to swear you in. Sure. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? Yep. Thank you. Thank you. So go ahead. Tell us what. What your thoughts are. Yeah, let me. So let me clarify a couple of things. So one. Yes, this is one day conservation project and the city has donated $915,000 towards conservation. We have not received any of that money. We have not received any of that money. We have not received any of that money. No, no, no. No money does not go to bread and butter farm and it shouldn't be construed as such. It goes towards conservation. The city is buying conservation, which is exactly what we're executing on. On 375 acres. And, and also doing farm projects that are community based projects as a component of that we're doing farm, labor housing and farm community housing. Which is what you're reviewing right now. So we're trying to, we're trying to, which is affordable housing for a farm community and other locations we would. We've deemed this as, you know, where we can do what we need to do to sort of survive and thrive as a farm. So the contribution from the city is, is. Wonderful, but it does not mean we can't have a farm community housing, but I don't, I also think it's key to. I think the term farm labor housing maybe has some baggage with it. So I would, I would kind of throw that out in this case and, and consider this farm community housing. Meaning that we have people here that say. Work in the cafe or they work for bread and butter farm or they have their own business that's connected to what we do. This. Housing is intended to be available for them and it's not the farm that's owning the housing and it's the farm families that live here that are owning those house sites. So while. Say an owner of bread and butter farm may actually own one of these house sites and owner of blank page cafe may own one of these house sites, et cetera. So I don't want to make sure that we're understanding that it's a little bit more comprehensive and intended to be more comprehensive than that. There could be a scenario where these house sites are being rented. That's not their intention. They're not intended to be vehicles for revenue or for market rate, anything. We're, we're applying additional. Layers and protections and covenants to make sure that these house sites remain in perpetuity part of the farm community, but that's on us as Marla said, that's not within the purview of the city to say we can or cannot do that. Or we can or cannot use this as. As farm labor housing or really market rate homes for that matter. We're the ones putting their own restrictions on that. To ensure that that doesn't happen. So I would say, you know, in looking at this application, I would encourage you to look at, look at it as yes, it is a farm community project, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be reviewed under the same stringent manner that you would apply to any other project in the city. That said, I think in the Southeast quadrant conservation is key. And I think that's what we're trying to do in this project and also trying to minimize the impact of the house sites. I think some of the ratio design and the limited lot size. Maybe. Didn't fully contemplate the need for septic systems because those are not as common in South Burlington. And that's very understandable. But what we tried to do here, based on engineer advice was really limit the impact in the footprint of all these house sites where we're going above and beyond and actually conserving all of the land underneath these house sites as well. So even the subdivided parcels were only subdividing because the city requires us to subdivide in order to have three housing units here. Otherwise we wouldn't even be seeking subdivision. So the entirety of the parcel will be conserved when we're done in January. Thank you. What are your thoughts, Dan? I would also think it would behoove the farm to help retain its employees to make rental housing available to them because we know how hard it is to find rental properties within South Burlington in the greater area. So. Okay. Any other general questions? Are we ready to take a motion to close this hearing and invite the applicant back for final plaque? I would request a public comment. Thank you. I always forget that. Are there any public comments? Nope. Hearing none. Board, are we ready to craft a motion to close this hearing? I will make a motion that we close the hearing and see the applicant next at final plaque. Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? So we are back here. Thank you. Okay. We're trying to find a board member who is on the phone. He's here. Hi, Jim. Now we will proceed to number seven on the agenda, which is preliminary and final plat SD 2121 of Donald and Lois Kerwin to amend a previously approved planned unit development of two lots. The amendment is to subdivide lot two and lot 2.83 acres into three lots of 0.28 acres each in order to develop a single family home on each at 1420 Hinesburg Road. Are there any board members who need to make a disclosure or recuse themselves? Jim, are you back with us? Yeah. Who is here for the applicant? Hello. Can you speak up a little? I had a hard time hearing you. This is Billy Roberts. I'm with Civil Engineering Associates on behalf of Donald and Lois Curwin. Okay. Are there any other people here with you that will be testifying today? No. Okay. Billy, I'm going to swear you in. Would you raise your right hand, please? You solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury. Yes. Thank you. Why don't you tell us a little bit about this project? We've seen it before. We've discussed it before, but I think it's always helpful to have a little reminder and a little overview of the project. Yeah. So, this project is on lot two of the, it's currently a two, two lots of division that previously happened. This application seeks to divide lot three into, or sorry, lot two into three equal lots, which would make it a PV. This is southeast of Butler Farms. So, the connection point would be on Highland Terrace Road, which connects off Du Bois Drive and then loops down to Route 16 Heinberg Road again. This application seeks for each house to have its own driveway, and each of the homes would have access to it on site, drove well. Two of the houses would share one well, and one house would have another well drove. All the wastewater flows would go to municipal sewer. And yeah. Yeah. Is that it? Yeah. Okay, good. Thank you. So, let us look at the staff report and go through the staff comments, and the board can share its thoughts with you, and you can respond to the comments as well. The first staff comment is the applicants plan, the applicants plat plan notes the lots are 12,000 square feet while the application form indicates 11,979 square feet. Staff recommend the board ask the applicant to clarify. So, if you could do that, please, that would be helpful. Yeah. So, these are three equal lots. They're all 12,000 square feet in size. Okay. Thank you. Does the applicant need to make any changes to any of the documentation? What the plan says governs. So, I think they are, oh, let me rephrase that. They are okay. Okay. Thank you. Number two, staff recommends the board consider whether the scrub tree area on the east warrants requiring the applicant to minimize disturbance to allow for tree preservation. Staff notes the location of the home supports a strong street presence, and preservation of these trees may detract from that presence. If the board determines the applicant should preserve trees, staff recommends the board require the applicant to update the plans to reduce impacts and show a limit of tree clearing. So, I guess we'll ask you, Billy, if you could respond to this and the board can ask any questions of you. Yeah. So, right now we're showing there's a lot of scrub trees that aren't that visually appealing. And a lot of these trees we're showing to be removed for installation of utilities. The removal of these trees would allow for a fresh start in the area. It's kind of, right now it's kind of an overgrown area. It's not really well maintained. So, a fresh start might be beneficial for this. So, when you say a fresh start, are you talking about removing all the scrub trees and all the vegetation there and making new plantings? Option for new plantings would be available. We're not proposing any plantings at this time, but we are proposing to remove all the trees along Highland Terrace for installation of utilities. That would support the project. I'm sorry, did you say installation or installation? Installation or installation of utilities? Installation. So, questions about removal of the trees? Just to be clear that the utility, the entire frontage would be stripped to accommodate the utilities? As designed, right? Because if they put the utilities under the driveways instead of off the side of the driveways, there's a potential. I mean, basically as they have the project, that's what would happen, but that doesn't preclude a shared driveway between all three lots or putting the utilities under the driveway. We don't have to necessarily respond to black or white here. There are some options available. Right. I'm just trying to get a sense. Is the clearing in a north-south direction or is it three east-west, west-east? It's the north-south direction. I'm going to kind of draw on the plan. There's no real tree line, but I think the trees are sort of Irish. Right. Really, is that about right? Yeah, that's correct. I guess what I'm getting at is this is this one of those things where we were essentially approving the lots and individual homeowners can do what they want at the time? Well, this is a DUD. So, not exactly. Okay. There are restrictions. I think the board tends to be a little more flexible when it's not intended to be a large neighborhood, but individual lots that are stuck with being a PUD because of their location. The board does have the authority to place whatever restrictions they feel appropriate on these lots. I mean, personally, I'm okay with the three separate driveways because you're trying to create a neighborhood feel. That's okay to me, and I guess to the extent that some of the clearing can be minimized only to not shock the neighbors across the street. Then come back with some ideas or options or maybe it's a combination of some clearing, plus some new landscaping elements. So just to be clear, this is preliminary and final plan, so they won't be coming back for final plan. Other other folks comments, questions? What is our pleasure then? Shall we? Well, one other thing we could do is I don't quite remember if it was in the packet, but we go to Google Street View and kind of look at the trees too. Okay. I know I'm putting a lot on you. All the sudden, do I? Don't stare at it because I happen to have our parcel viewer up from earlier. Okay. Actually, that's not going to work. I'm going to have to go to Street View them up. Island Terrace, Burlington, and drop our friend somewhere in this vicinity I think. I am going to share my screen. Oh, I think you might have to invite me. I am in the city of South Burlington in the secondary. So this is the line of trees that we're talking about. Oh, yeah. It's very scrubby. Very scrubby. Normandy Bocage there, yeah. So we're not talking mature trees, we're talking. Yeah. So is the board's feeling that they can live with the clearing of the trees? I'm okay with clearing of the scrub, but it would be nice to have some trees planted to mimic the other side of the street, which appears to have some mature trees. I mean, it will take a while for them to get there, but it would be nice to have something instead of a completely cleared. I mean, it varies obviously. There's a little mix of things or to the extent trees at the corners of the lot so that there's a little bit of a sense of privacy from lot to lot or something to delineate three curb cuts in the road. I mean, yeah. I mean, I don't know how much leeway we have. Right. I was just going to say, can we do? Yes. It's a PUD. You are welcome to place whatever restrictions you think are appropriate it on the application. So we could require certainly within the normal scope of the board. I kind of agree with Dan. It would be nice to have some delineation and some decent trees and require that. What do other people think? I agree as well. It doesn't look like there's much there currently that's worth preserving, but creating a nice street presence with new trees that will mature would be a good idea. I would note that the large portion of the driveway is within the city right of way. And so I don't think that there's any problem requiring trees within the city right of way, but there's a couple things you need to be cognizant of. One is that there's a little bit of a drainage ditch there. So any trees shouldn't be like in the bottom of the ditch. They should be sort of off the side of the ditch and then make a conscious choice about whether the trees are on the properties that you're going to require or the trees are within the city. Are there any, can you give us any guidance about in design what's preferable? Well, if they're in the city right of way, they're the city's responsibility to maintain. Billy, there's no overhead utility here, right? No, not on the terrorist. I don't know that we have typically the arborist reviews what they propose in the street tree. So can we require a certain number of trees in consultation with the city arborist? Any future decision? I think that's reasonable. It's not, I mean, if you're specific about it, you know, deciduous species with a caliper no less than two and a half inches at installation, you know, two per lot near the eastern property line, or two per lot within the city right of way near the eastern property line, whichever you prefer. I think that's specific enough. Okay. Ward, what do you think, right of way or property? Does the city have other plantings along this road that it maintains? No, not on this road, I don't think. But elsewhere? Right. And Du Bois Drive, I believe has, yeah, so they're not, you know, that far. There are other lots to the north or south of this that might be developed in the future such that requiring some street trees now. If we put it in the city right away and they decide they want a sidewalk later, do they get cut down? Probably. Good question. And yes, there are a couple other lots north of this that have a similar development potential to this lot. Right. And then one farther south of this as well, not immediately south, that one is already some divided, but two south of this, there's potential. So yeah, it could be a pattern they get established along the street. So let's not, I would suggest, let's not mess with the future installation of a sidewalk or creation of a sidewalk. Let's put them on the property. Let's require them to be honest. Sounds okay, yeah. I think so. I'm a neighbor on Highland Terrace. I have some comments germane to the discussion, but I'm unclear when I can weigh in. Okay. Thank you. After we go through the staff comments, we will ask for public comment and we would welcome your thoughts and comments at that time. And the board, you know, has the opportunity to sort of revisit this topic if they're, you know, if the public comments are relevant and interested in changing the decision. Would you mind sticking around for a while so we can get through the staff comments and then we'll be glad to hear you. Yeah, I'll try to do that. Thank you. What is your name, please? Mark Abrams. Oh yes. We've heard you in the past. Yes. Okay. Comments, staff comment number three. Staff considers this response does not adequately address the related criteria and that is referring to a response the applicant provided in response to the criteria of values outlined in the Vermont wetland rules. Staff recommends the board discuss the above three criteria A through C with the applicant, including responses to the following questions. What is the wetlands ability to carry or store floodwaters and how will that be affected by the project? How will the project minimize sedimentation? The driveways are proposed to be gravel. The wetland functions and values may not be significant, but how is the proposed condition an improvement over existing? And we see on the screen the criteria A through C. So let's have a discussion about that. What could we ask of the applicant to speak more fully to the three criteria ABC? I guess one of the second bullet there about sedimentation, the driveways are proposed to be gravel and we know that those will get compressed over time anyway and then potentially get new gravel added every year or two or three. Is there a reason they couldn't be paved? It could be paved. This project, we had just shown them as gravel driveways. There are other gravel driveways along Highland Terrace. So we had just provided a gravel driveway just as starters. Can you respond to those more of the bullet points there about what is the wetlands ability to carry store? How will that be affected by the project that are you going to elaborate on that? Yeah, so we had Tina Keith from the Vermont wetland program come out. She concluded that the wetland is not a significant value. There's no it's not associated with a stream and it doesn't have an outlet. The source of the wetland there is fed by a foundation drain that comes from 1420 Highland Terrace, so the lot one residents to the west. That's the source of the wetland. This project proposes to extend that foundation drain to continue to a new swale that would discharge adjacent to Highland Terrace eventually through the culverts that would run underneath the driveway. So that wetland there, the source is going to be moved and we're going to be conveying that water and getting it to flow out of there. Okay, thanks. Marla, is that helpful? I mean, no, it's I do not find it to be helpful because the criteria I'm just going to zoom in on my own page so I can see it a little more slowly are the board needs to determine whether the encroachment will adversely affect the property to carry or store floodwaters. It sounds like the floodwaters, floodwaters in quotation marks if it's just a foundation drain, will in fact be conveyed more directly. Will not adversely affect the ability to post stormwater treatment systems to reduce sedimentation. As Dan noted, they're proposing gravel driveways. I don't know the gravel driveways reduce sedimentation. And then the specific wetlands functions and values, Billy noted that there is not significant functions and values, but in order to be a wetland, it does have some function and value, however minimal, you know, in those functions maybe, you know, flood management or stormwater treatment or what have you, which we've seen at a bunch of times before. So I don't know that how removing flow from the wetlands improves the well and functions and values. Or I don't know that we've seen how these impacts are minimized or mitigated. You know, if the board determines that this wetland is so small and so insignificant that they that they're going to approve the impact anyway, that's fine. But I don't think that we've received testimony with which to make that decision. So are you suggesting perhaps that the board consider after we review the staff comments and take public comment that we continue this hearing so that the applicant can provide adequate testimony about and speak to these three criteria. So pulling back the curtain a little bit, there was a lot of back and forth before this got to you. You know, we always try to have a really good project into you guys. And I'm not sure that the applicant is prepared to prepare additional testimony without some more directions from the board, because I did try to convey some of this stuff. And, you know, the result is what's written in the staff report. Thanks, Marla. I know it's a hassle. Can you go to the map and get out the magic marker and show us what kind of wetlands we're talking about and what is the relative impact? We're trying to balance the wetland impacts with some good density here. It's like class three. And then the buffer, you can see, you know, obviously is kind of a bullseye. Is there, again, because I'm still relatively new to this, given this situation, there obviously would need to be mitigation measures because the impacts are right on top of the wetland and the buffer. So what would be some things that those in the professional community would recommend? Is it additional landscaping along the back of the lot to help, I won't say recreate a wetland, but provide some of the treatment functions that a wetland provides through more vegetation? Well, and I think that's where the functions and values come in. You know, knowing what functions, however, limited this wetland provides, if it's habitat, you know, some vegetation may be useful. If it's stormwater treatment, a little bit of a detention might be appropriate. You know, if it is, I don't know, whatever other functions, you know, I think the mitigation, if mitigation is required, should be tailored to the functions. And the minimization, you know, kind of speaks for itself, like, can this be minimized? And if not, you know, what, what is. And we don't have a wetlands mitigation bank type program like, right, we don't have any kind of, right, like that. And do we ever do things where perhaps like the back of the lot is created as a wetland or something, you know, something where you're essentially shifting the drainage around like, like if you were able to pick up this little Class 3 wetland and move it, is it feasible to do that from an engineering perspective? Because obviously, you know, essentially, yeah, moving the water, moving the wetland to the west. And is it sound to build homes? I know it's a Class 3 wetland, but does that create flooding issues for the homes? Are they all going to have drainage systems? I guess that'd be the question for the applicant. Yeah, they would have foundation drains around the foundation of the house. Right. Okay. And some pump systems too, whole house systems like that, or just foundation drains? No, just foundation drains. Okay. I mean, I'm kind of looking at kind of punting the Marlar, punting to the back to the engineers about other kind of mitigation measures that might are commonly used in this situation because I'm sure it's been run into other places, right? Well, it looks like here too, like I'm looking at the proposed conditions plan. And so the Class 3 wetland you're saying was formed essentially from the foundation drain, but you're proposing to extend that foundation drain into the proposed swell. So essentially, if, you know, that wetland will go wet. And will another one be created? No. So if you look at, if you can zoom in, is that the same sheet that I'm looking at? Yeah. So if you, yep. So right there where your cursor just was, Delilah. So you guys see that dark line that says FD? It's up by the property line. Yes. Yeah. So the darker one is the proposed extension of the foundation drain. So, and then you can see the lighter FD line is the existing. So it looks like their proposal is that they're going to take that foundation drain. And then instead of having it daylight where it does now and feeding into the well end, it's going to be extended and then picked up into the drainage swell. So effectively that well end is, it's going to go wet. But the water goes somewhere, right? Right. So they're redirecting it into the swell and then that will discharge. If you looked at Google Street View, there's a catch basin. That's kind of off to the side of the road. So it looks to me like that's where it would all eventually drain to. Okay. So I asked that the weird question, but is there since the back of a lot of butts, the back of a lot of the other property from which it's being subdivided, is there a way to have it drain to the west? And create. I'm sorry. Yeah. The eastern side is downhill from the west. How far or what's the relative grade? Only because I only say this in part because I have a sump pump that I do not debt. When I, when I had a whole house drainage system, it used to, before I bought it, it used to discharge into the city's stormwater system and said, I have it discharged into my rain garden. And so, and it pumps, you know, it runs pretty regularly. And so I'm calling if it's feasible to pump, if we're trying to maintain a wet spot, a wetland, is it feasible to essentially create a wetland on the back of a property? I would ask the fundamental question are, you know, do we have enough information to decide if it is worth jumping through a bunch of hoops for this well? And if we do have enough information to decide, is it worth jumping through a bunch of hoops to protect the swelling? Where are, what's the board's temperature on that? I'm, I'm feeling a little over my head. I'm not, I don't have an ounce of civil engineering in my body. So I'm, I'm going to. Nor do I despite my bloviating. I was impressed. Stephanie, you're. I mean, I rely on my team of natural resources scientists that, but I mean, if I take it at face value and, and say that, okay, if the wetland truly was created by the foundation drain of the building to the West, then I don't see, I mean, it's, yeah, it's probably treating, you know, it's not going to get a ton of stormwater, you know, it'll get some, but if it's the foundation drain of the building, and then habitat is all of that's kind of out of my realm. Jim. This is Jim. Yeah, I guess that's my, I guess that's where I am, is that we haven't been provided that information for those ABC criteria there. So it, so it's hard for me to say that, you know, to consider the following standards if we haven't, if they haven't been addressed by the applicant. Thanks, Jim. So what shall we do, board? Back again, I did this for staff. What, what criteria, like we can, we can permit encroachment in the Class 3 wetland provided we think there's enough mitigation or things going on. Yeah. So that's why I'm trying to think of like, well, what can be done to mitigate it. So I'm, Right. So for example, But I guess that's not our job. That's, I feel like that's, we're not even, we're not even really skilled to do that. I would agree with that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So at the last, the last hearing we heard from someone who wanted to do a stormwater project that impacted the Class 3 wetland and they were able to say, you know, the functions of this wetland are X and this stormwater pond should be allowed because it actually improved stormwater treatment. So it was, you know, a more responsive response to these criteria and it was more tailored to what, and it's not that the board is inclined or disinclined to approve or deny any of this. It's more that we need to understand. Yeah. So it sounds like we're going to need more information. Let's go ahead and move through the rest of the comments. And then we'll hear public comment and we'll, we'll decide what we want to do. Number four, driveway drainage is proposed to consist of 12 inch pipes with exactly two foot feet of cover. City standards require a minimum driveway culvert size of 18 inches with a two foot of cover and stone spillway at the downstream end of each culvert. Alternatively, the driveways may be graded to allow drainage to flow across them if adjacent grades allow. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to modify the driveway drainage prior to closing the hearing. So, Billy, what are your thoughts about that? Yes. So I had, we had a conversation with Justin Bravedu with Public Works after the last meeting to work out these driveway designs. And he agreed with us that there's not enough elevation there to be able to utilize an 18 inch culvert. So we settled on a 15 inch culvert just because there's not enough elevation to make the culverts work with the cover that is required if we've had an 18 inch. So he was able to, he agreed that we could use a 15 inch for these driveways. And would that have a two foot cover? Yes. Two feet of cover over the top of the pipe, or are you going from invert? No, that would be over the top of the pipe. So the way that they're designed now when I do the math out, it didn't look like there was two feet of cover proposed. Can we accept the fee? Um, standard is 18. If they put Justin and I have no reasons to doubt in this case, I would, you know, there is the cover issue. And then I would also note that, you know, the adjacent property was approved with driveways with a low spot of the flow going over the driveway. And that's not unheard of either. So if they can't get two feet of cover, that's still on the table. Well, could they use a different pipe and get one foot of cover? I can't make that decision for pipes that are in the city. So okay, another reason we might not be able to close tonight. Billy, do you have any, any anything else to say about this? All right, thank you. Moving on to number five, the proposed single family homes on lot two, lots two, three and four will be oriented to face Highland Terrace. Primary, primary entries will face the street. No statement as to windows has been made. The provided elevation show very few windows on any facade. Roof lines are mixed and oriented both east and west, north and south. Staff recommends the board determine whether they consider this criterion met. Now the standards related to glazing and the amount of glazing in the direction of the glazing. Are they not applicable to PUDs? Right. The standard is immediately above. It says a minimum of 35%. I mean, that's only part of the standard. The whole standard is residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Check residential entries or primary entries must face the street. Check secondary buildings. They open to garages and or parking areas. A minimum of 35% of translucent windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. And then the rest of the standard is about the SQNRN, which is not us. So the ones that are musts, they have covered and the ones that are shoulds, they may or may not have covered. Yeah, you can see from this one that there's just not a lot of glazing and I didn't do the math and they didn't provide the math. So maybe maybe we could ask for that. The board in the past has found that, you know, a should is not a shell and has not worried too much about it. I would look at this and I'd say, you know, maybe 20%, 25% is oriented to the south. That's not terrible. It's not the best. So yes, you can ask for that. Certainly. And then make a determination or you could decide that this is okay or you could say what would be most helpful is either decide it's okay tonight or tell them come back with some extra windows next time or meet it next time, you know, so that we don't have to have we just have it cut and dry. Yeah, I'll chime in on the porch being in the front. Is that part of the structure so that the garage is truly set back from it? Okay. It's interesting because when I look at the photo, not the design, I think it's the previous one that shows like a photo of like, this is what the house might look like. And then this one, to me, the garage is still the dominant feature of this house. And I know it's not a village district, right? You know, we're not trying to create Heidi Ho neighbor and there's a sidewalk. But it strikes me as a commercial building when I look at this because it's almost like there's a door and a little small, well, a little small and not so much the courtyard, but there's like, there's the door and there's this tiny little window here. It's not even like a bay window or a welcoming window or a living room window. It's kind of like it strikes me as a commercial building. And I just, again, I don't want to get too into visual and aesthetics and micromanage. But on the other hand, it's and are these how I guess the question is, are these homes understand squeezing three lots in there? And we certainly need the housing. Are these is the edge of the north and south? Are they right to the, are they right to the setback? Are these homes, could these homes be wider and therefore the garage could be not so much the dominant feature? Because right now it's the frontage. It's like 55 60% of the frontage is the garage. Billy? Billy. Yeah, well, these, these homes can be modified to be wider. They are set to the 25 foot build two line. So they're not on the front setback in this district, they have to be on the 25 foot build two line, which I think the front setbacks 20 feet. So they're actually they're five feet beyond that front setback line. What about the side setback? That's the most it's the side setback that I'm most worried about. Oh, the side setback that's also in this district, it's it's 10 feet. So there is room to make the buildings wider. We would have to discuss that with the applicant, but they're the primary goal for the applicant is primarily to get the PUD in order to sell the lots. It's likely that when it comes time to be built there, there may be design changes with the whole. I guess when I look at it would be by making them a little wider north south, you could decrease the dominance of the garage, but I'm also concerned about the lack of glazing. I think that would improve the attractiveness of the houses. So in criteria 9.084, which is on the same page as comment number five that we're talking about, there is some language about the building with needs to be at least 12 feet. And the garage must be set back at least eight feet. If the board is feeling like that is not cutting it with this style home, there is the opportunity to, you know, modify criteria somewhat. Though, you know, this is the standard that the Planning Commission has set. And I always caution the board that when there's a specific numeric criterion that the Planning Commission has chosen, if you choose to impose conditions of a PUD that differ or waive the specific numeric criterion, you are taking on a policy making rule as opposed to when it's more. No, the glazing number, I'm less worried about the glazing number is a should and the board does tend to apply it as a should. I'm talking about standard number four about the building width of a single or two family dwelling shall be no less than 12 feet. And the garage needs to be set back eight feet from that minimum 12th section. But you know, I didn't think the garage looked like it was set back eight feet, is it? It is because the porch is eight feet deep. Oh, and that counts. Okay. But it's not a, well, in this case that the building width is still going to be more than 12 feet, right? So that's fine. That's met. Right. So the specific numeric criteria are met. Yeah. In this case. So the board's concern, I think in this case is with the regulatory language less than with what they have shown. Okay. Unless it's because of the style of the building that it has a different appearance than what you're used to seeing. Okay. So what do folks think? And just to be clear, there's no, I'm just applying my aesthetic grumpiness about the dominance of the garage. That's all. There's no real standard I'm applying, right? Well, there is a standard and they've met it. Right. Yeah, the setback part's okay. It's just more, there is no standard about could a three car garage go in front? As long as it's back at least eight feet and the guess. Okay. That's the next round of revisions to the LDRs. Sorry. No, I think that's a great thing to bring up like this, you know, every time you write a regulation as you well know, there's always that one thing that pops up where you're like, oh, we didn't think of that. Right. So what shall we do board? I'm concerned about the glazing. I'm going to be honest. I mean, we have a standard. I haven't met the standard. I'd like to see them get closer to the standard. Well, so one thing that can be done here and has been done on other lots on Highland Terrace is, you know, these are sample homes this in the narrative that's in blue above item number five, it kind of talks about what elements of these homes will be retained. And so you could add something that says and the blazing shall be 3535% of the blazing shall face south. Can I have an opinion for a second? The language of this standard has always bothered me because it says a minimum of 35% of the windows and surfaces shall be oriented to the south or should be oriented to the south. If they choose to have zero windows on the northwest and east sides, they've met the standard. So by requiring them to meet the standard, it doesn't necessarily result in more windows to the south, it just results in more of the windows to the south. Okay. Do you have a suggestion? My suggestion to the planning commission on this very issue was to change it to a minimum percent of the area of the facade, but what that number is is up to them. So, board, what are your thoughts about this? I just feel like they haven't provided us enough information about the wetland. They sort of sprung it on us, but that was even there. And I'm not convinced that we have enough information to make a decision one way or another. So, it's likely we'll ask them to come back with that, but in terms of the glazing, are folks satisfied with what they've proposed or do we want to push back? I would like to see something close to the 35% and make it more attractive, as well as achieve some of the other goals of solar gain, etc. Okay. Can people live with that? I think we're in the same wavelength. Jim. Yep. I am too. Okay. All right. So, I think that's it for staff comments. I'd like to open it up for, well, before we go to public comment, Billy, do you have anything to say at this point? That the description added to what we were proposing with like T11 siding and the Gable ends, or is that like we need new plans to be sent in? I didn't hear the last part of what you said. We need to what? So, is that a description that gets added to what we had proposed, or do we got to send in new plans? It sounds like we want to see more glazing. And I would say we want to see new plans, not just not just text, but yeah. So, do you have any before we move on to public comment, do you have any other questions or comments? No. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Adams, I understand you want to make, pardon? Adams Abrams. I'm sorry. Thank you. I understand you want to make some comments. Let me just find out how many other people want to make comments about this project. People online? Comments? Okay. Well, maybe some will emerge. Mr. Abrams, tell us what's on your mind. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you for your patience. You can turn your camera on if you'd like to. That's okay. Thank you. He's in his pajamas. I've been, I wonder how much consideration the various boards through the years have given to the character impact of new designs on long established neighborhoods. I moved to Highland Terrace in August of 1981, and it had been here for at least two, three or more years before that. The whole street had fairly long lots running to the east. Mine is about 13 acres. I've been paying taxes on it since 1981. And unlike today, where the new trends and popularity of mixed neighborhood development, where you have single family homes, duplexes, condos, and so forth, all different formats, where the buyer can go into a major life decision with their eyes fully open and make their choices. In Highland Terrace, there are decades of a very quiet street with a very, to me, valuable and scientifically validated, valuable green space, green resources on the west side of the street. Some of it until recently was right across the view from where I spend an awful lot of time in my office. And they've been torn out. And I just wonder how much awareness of impact on established neighbors, how much thought has been given to that. At this point, there's still some of the character preservable on this street. And one question comes to my mind. I like to see people doing what they choose to do, if possible, with private property. But I would ask that access to any lots that are on Route 116 be made from Route 116. I've been very unhappy. And some of the neighbors as well, with the multiple driveways going in and small houses, such as have been described here, this can impact property values, aesthetics, and more traffic, more distraction, and a number of other factors. I submitted a proposed statute to the city council, and I think the DRB in 2019 proposing that the city give due respect and consideration to establish neighborhoods and grandfather them in so they'd be exempt at such a character change. And I must say that the question arose in my mind when it first started came to my awareness. What are the actual qualifications of the city to perform social engineering without any consideration of existing human beings? I noticed as well the city council was quite put off balance and upset when it wasn't invited to the city of Burlington's meetings about whether or not to permit higher ground to settle in close to Queen City Park. There was a lot of reaction to impacts of activity, noise, change of character, things like that. I thought it was ironic. All that said, I would request that if people want to put a lot of houses behind their homes, fine, but do so through their own driveway, why ruin another half of the street by ripping it all down, the green screening. You know, be responsible. You want to develop. Do it through your property. So that's a short form. I can resubmit the proposal that goes into a lot more detail. And two years ago, October, I went before the board with a scientist giving testimony, a lot of data, and that went to the staffers on the extensive scientific value of green space and its effects on physical and emotional health. And recovery from surgery just out of the hospital window, the landmark study of comparing very similar post-surgical patients who one group had a view of trees, the other group had a view of something unpleasant or plain, and there was a statistically very significant difference in the speed of recovery and reduction in the use of painkillers. That's Roger Ulrich, U-L-R-I-C-H's study. But since that time, there's extensive data on that. And we want to preserve the natural environment as much as possible. You folks in the city have a tricky job to thread the needle through all these factors. But just give me a reaction if you would. Is any of this new to you in terms of established neighborhood reaction to radical change? Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Abrams. I can comment as best I can. So if you look at page nine of the agenda item there, there's the staff report. There is a discussion about criteria for review. And as it goes at the bottom of page nine, the comprehensive plan identifies the plan development patterns for the project area as lower intensity, principally residential development, and then it defines what lower intensity principally residential is defined as follows. So this is the SEQ, what district is this in again? Neighborhood residential? Right. So residential use is encouraged, and there's a description at the right there at the top of page 10. I mean, it's the zoning bylaws that set the general character for each district and the allowable uses and the relative density and provides guidance to the board. So the density is compatible at four units per acre. It seems consistent with the description of the district. So the board and the applicants look to that guidance. So your concerns, you know, understand where you're coming from, and this is but it's in this district. It's not in any other districts in the SEQ that are less lower residential, a larger lot sizes, that kind of thing, broad open vistas, farmland character, what people think of as rural because this is defined as a neighborhood residential. And so that's what this is doing, I guess. So that's the only comment I would have. No, thank you. This is Mark Abrams again. I would respond to that from my on the ground perspective that and recommend to the city that going forward whatever goes into the determination of districts would do well to focus down in more detail and actually maybe get people out. We're not a huge city. Get people out and get a real view, real world view of these neighborhoods that are under that under that I would say inadequate magnifying glass. But yeah, thank you. Thanks for your comments, though. I appreciate the time. Yes. Thank you, Mr Abrams. And you're absolutely right. It is difficult to balance all of the needs and wishes, you know, open land, natural habitat, need for affordable housing. These all have to get balanced out and and it's never easy to see change, but I appreciate your comments. And thank you. So any other other any other members of the public who would like to weigh in on this project? Okay, thank you. So it seems to me that we need more information from the applicant and that we should therefore continue the hearing to a later date so that information can be provided information about the wetland and meeting those criteria and glazing all of that. So probably sure. With the discussion about trees, would it if it's going to be continued anyway? It'd be super slick if they could propose some trees and we could get that reviewed before rather than having to do it as a condition. Sure. Did you catch that Billy? Billy? Billy? Yes. Yeah. Did you hear Myrla's comment? Yes. Okay. So she can look forward to hearing from you about that so we she can run that by the City Arbors, I guess. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Is a motion appropriate, Madam Chair? Yes. I would move to continue preliminary and final plot application SD 21-21 1420 Heinsberg Road to date in the future. And I would second that. You have to make a specific motion. It has to be to a specific date. And can I ask when what do we have room for? We have room on October 5th if you would like. Billy, that means you have to get me everything in two weeks time. Does that sound doable? Yes. That'll work. I would amend my motion to continue the hearing for this SD 21-21 to October 5th. And I will second that motion. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion? Signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? I think the motion is carried. Or the motion is carried. I know it is. Okay. Thank you, Billy. And okay. Turning back to the agenda. We now need to review the minutes of July 20th and August 3rd. Have people had a chance to read the minutes? Would someone like to make a motion that we do? Do we have to do each one separately? You can do them together. Okay. Here you go. I move that we accept the minutes of July 20th and August 3rd, 2021. Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor of approving the minutes say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Opposed? Okay. The motion is carried. And that brings us to the end of the agenda. Is there any other business? So there will not be a CRB meeting on the 21st. It's not been warned. There's nothing to worry about. Just people are in a rhythm. There's a slight interruption to your rhythm. So our next meeting will be October 5th. Okay. Do we need a motion to close? I never do not. Okay. So I say we close the meeting and the meeting. This conference is no longer being recorded.