 or you can submit your contact information on the chat function if you're joining us online. Again, thank you for being here. This meeting is being recorded, and I want to start by reviewing the emergency evacuation procedures. At the back of the auditorium on either corner, there are doors in the event of an emergency. You would exit those doors and either turn right or left and that will take you outside. Are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items for tonight? Not for me. Okay, are there any announcements? We are still searching for a member of our Development Review Board, so for all of those of you who are listening, if you have a burning desire to be up here with us, we would love to have you apply. Please consider it. Any comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda? Hearing none, let's move on to the first application. Site plan application SP 23036 of Engineers Construction Inc. for after-the-fact approval, pardon me, for a contractor's yard in alteration of grade. The project consists of authorizing the continued use of a contractor's yard to place fill materials at 24 Barard Drive. Who is here for the applicant, please? Would you like to move up to the table and the mic? If you could push the button. It'll turn from dull green to bright green. You want it very close to yourself. Okay. There you go. Could you introduce yourself, please? My name is Jesse Carzwell. I'm an engineer at Krebs and Lansing Consulting Engineers. Thanks, Jesse. I'm going to have you raise your right hand. I'm going to square you in. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? Yes. Thank you. So what we typically do is we have all read, as have you, I'm sure, the staff report. And typically we ask for a few introductory comments by the applicant. And then we walk through the staff report and have you respond to those items that have been identified as questions that are usually in red. And we discuss those with you. And I'm sure you've had a chance to look at them. So you probably have some thoughts about each one already. But let's go ahead and open up with a brief introduction. I must say we're used to reviewing other kinds of projects. So I found myself kind of puzzled by what this is and why it is. And I wonder if you could explain to us in like non-engineering terms. What is this property? What has it been? And what are you trying to accomplish? Yes, sure. It is, from my understanding, it was originally just a fill site, which was permitted in 1998, I believe. And then as portions of it have become filled over the years, it's primarily used as a contractor's yard now for staging and stockpiling of materials while also still doing some filling on the site. I guess maybe that's the, with the ultimate goal to be to fill the site to essentially create a flat level surface, as I understand it. Slightly less than the elevation of the eastern edge of a barrage drive. So when that happens and materials are thrown into it, do they get tamped down to prevent settling in the future? Yes, I think so. Okay. All right. Does anyone have any other general questions about this project? Is there anything in the existing permit that prevents the dumping of toxic or hazardous materials? Well, the site has a state permit as a categorical disposal facility and that sort of controls, I guess, or regulates the materials that can be used on site, disposed of on site. So certainly not toxic materials. So to answer Frank's question about the previous approval, which as long since expired, expired in 2008, it did restrict materials to no wood sheetrock or building materials would be allowed. Things like gravel, concrete, asphalt and excavated soils would be allowed. Wood would not be allowed. Wood would not be allowed. Okay. Stumps would not be allowed. Rebar would not be, let's see. Looks like they were a little bit unclear. It sounds like they were looking to avoid rebar but didn't, but stopped short of specifically prohibiting it. Okay. But the state permit is still in effect? Yes. And are we being asked to somehow resuscitate the existing permit or to issue a new permit with latitude to create our own conditions? What are we doing here? Yes. So our regulations allow placement of fill with DRB approval. This is because the previous approval stipulated that it would expire after 10 years and ECI has continued to use the site there in violation of their previous approval because they expired. They would like to continue to use the site as they have been and so they need a new approval to do so. And so it gives us the opportunity to sort of set new conditions including a temporal condition or a physical condition in which Jesse can talk about. And impose any conditions that are otherwise reasonable when we deem appropriate. Yep. And so the regulations do, I would say, just sort of to summarize the staff report and I guess the way Paul said it. They have a project. It just needs some details to be ironed out. It's not not approvable. Okay. Is there a sanction because they don't have a current permit? Yeah, it's relatively minor. Our ability to impose fines is limited to without formal violation which we didn't issue in this case because they really jumped on it when we told them they had a problem. They're only penalized 50% of the application fee. Yeah. Thanks. All right. Any other questions before we dive in? All right. Let's move on to comment number one. And this is the need to update. This involves the need to update the lot coverage both for present and the future plans. So what are your thoughts about that? Well, what I used to determine the existing impervious area on the site was essentially taking a 20 foot corridor and extending it from the end of the paved northern access through the site up to the point where it meets the temporary construction road. That is a very compacted area of the site because that's where the traffic goes back and forth through the site. But outside of that it's more, it's uneven and looser gravel that I've seen water pond up on there and it seeps down through. But as Marla pointed out in the staff notes, it just says I had to label the area something so I didn't write existing loose gravel. I didn't differentiate between what I'm calling the main road corridor and the gravel areas around it. But don't we actually need data on the lot coverage? Isn't that what you're looking for in this comment? Yeah. So I think I understand that you're saying that the portion that's labeled a portion of the area labeled as gravel on the existing conditions plan is in fact permeable. Our regulations is a little silly and difficult to, and it comes up all the time, so completely understood. We don't, lot coverage is not necessarily in permeable surfaces for the purpose of our regulations. Lot coverage is what appears to be covered by disturbed areas. Stormwater has its own regulations. It's a traditional impervious, pervious calculation, but if it appears to be gravel, it counts as lot coverage for the purposes of the LDRs. And I think that this site is likely well under the maximum allowable lot coverage of 70%. So even taking into account the looser gravel areas. Okay. So I'm not worried about it. It's just a, you know, accounting problem here to correct both the existing and the proposed what areas are gravel and what areas are. And I wouldn't count the riprap embankments towards a lot coverage because that's going to be a big loose stone. Does everybody feel okay about that? Okay. See you then again? The riprap embankments, I wouldn't recommend counting that towards lot coverage because that's more like a, you know. Is that revetment? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So what is it we're looking for from the applicants so that we can make just an updated numbers and they can make additional approval. Okay. Update the existing and proposed numbers. Okay. Perfect. Okay. So we're going to move on to number two. This is a request that you modify the cell Southern driveway. So that it's only used for passenger vehicles. Is that something you can do? Ken was wondering about the possibility if that could be used as only as an entrance only to the site for. It could be used as entrance and exit for personal vehicles, I guess, for light duty trucks, but as for larger trucks that could be used as an entrance to the site. And then they would only exit onto Barar Drive onto the existing Northern access so they could still have circulation through the site without having to pull onto Barar Drive from the Southern access, which has limited site distance. Okay. So what are your thoughts about that board and staff? If we did that, I think I'd want to have it entrance only across the board and not try to differentiate between the kinds of vehicles. Okay. I'm trying to visualize a signage that would work and be respected. Yeah. If it tried to distinguish between a pickup truck and a dump truck. That would become an enforcement challenge. You know, because you're looking at the enforcement team here. We don't have a lot of extra time for chasing down this stuff. So we always try to set up conditions of approval such that we that projects are most likely to succeed. I asked Marty to pull up the aerial imagery so he can do that in just a second to kind of show you what that would look like. I'm going to be welcome. Are you going to be testifying tonight? I may. Okay. And would you introduce yourself? And I'm going to swear you in. Ken Pigeon. Can you press the button on your mic, please? Oh, sorry. All right. I guess Ken. Hang on. My name is Ken Pigeon. I'm a member of K&S Properties LLC. Okay. And Engineers Construction, which is leasing the property. Okay. Would you raise your right hand, please? I only swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury. I do. Thank you. So we're walking through the staff report now and Jesse has been responding to some of our questions. No doubt you'll want to participate because I think he already referred to Ken once. Okay. So the question, we're talking about the southern driveway and modifying it so that it's only for automobiles and not trucks. And this apparently your suggestion would be, could we use it just as an entrance? For heavy trucks and then exit with either small vehicles, either direction, enter or exit. Okay. And my comment is that if we're going to allow it as an entrance for heavy trucks, then we should make it entrance only for everybody because of the difficulty of frankly distinguishing, you know, and the dyesiness of enforcement for anything else. So we would have the southern entrance would be an entrance and the northern would be an exit. Or both. Or vice versa. No, the northern could be entrance or exit, but the southern would be entrance only. Okay. Would that be satisfactory to you? I think we could manage it with small vehicles. You know, we would sign it. But I think we could put a sign there saying that, you know, heavy trucks do not enter on the way out. So I think we could manage it pretty well to just have heavy trucks come in that side, exit out the north and manages so that just smaller vehicles like a pickup truck can go in and out of that southern entrance. Well, I asked Marney, what are you trying to accomplish? How about pickup trucks? You okay with pickup trucks? The board has had a chance to go out there to take a look at it, but you can kind of see the situation here. It's sight distances. Well, you can see the driveway right there. And if you want to kind of swing around the other way, yeah, that doesn't really capture it. Can you go down the road a bit? Out towards airport Parkway. Yeah. And now turn around. So that's the next building. And then you can't see the entrance anymore. It's now around the corner. And, you know, it's a city road is 25 miles an hour. It's industrial use. And here now you can just see the road, see the corner as you're coming down the street. It's pretty lousy sight distance. I went out there in a Dodge Charger and was kind of nervous pulling out of the driveway myself. You know, I would say again that it's kind of an enforcement challenge. We want to set things that go, that really shows it too. That really gives the feeling of what it feels like to sit in that driveway and try to like peer around the corner. There's a photo too. I took an in page two of eight of, I don't know if you can pull that up on the screen. And that's sort of looking at, well, it's roughly, you know, 10 or 15 feet back from the edge of pavement, which is sort of where you're measuring your sight distance from. And I think it's close to maybe 80 feet or so from this point looking that way to where you're looking, not quite at the center of the curve, but in that direction. So member, are you a member of the audience or are you here with the applicant? I am concerned. Okay. Okay. Thank you for your interest and the way we do this is we go through the staff report and then we ask for public comments. So if you could just hold your comments, please. All right. So back to the issue at hand. What do you think board? I think what I said. So can I ask what the concerns are with limiting the small vehicles as well? If we were wanting to ask for an entrance and an exit? Why is there the concern with making the smaller vehicles do that as well? There's not much concern. I've traveled in and out of myself with a small vehicle and I didn't see much of a hazard. I think maybe it's been opened up a little bit in mode or something there. I'm not sure. I looked mode in the picture that Jesse had right there on the screen. I didn't feel at risk at all and it is convenient because that's sometimes we only would go in that far and just kind of get a visual to see what's going on and then leave, but we can go around the other way. I don't think there's much concern about that. And I believe you, but my concern is coherence. In other words, tell me the language of, you can say signage. What does the sign say exactly? No heavy trucks. Heavy trucks what? Well, exactly. Heavy trucks do not enter or heavy, no exit for heavy trucks or something like that. Maybe that's kind of confusing. That's what we'll probably do anyway. It's either going to say we'll have some kind of signage. It'll either say no exit heavy trucks or no exit for anybody, right? It's the same sign. It's just one is applicable just to the heavy trucks. Yeah, but I think that it does go to an enforcement issue. Just like, you know, how many signs are on the notch? Don't go up here if you're in a semi and how many people go up there. I think it has to be one way or another and I'm seeing some of the sight line concerns. And, you know, if it's, I mean, how much traffic do you guys use that site? If it's just, I mean, if it's just go use the far southern or the far northern entrance and clean this up and. I can live with either. Yeah, I think what you're hearing from us is that would make us more comfortable given the sight lines. And if it's not an operational impact to you, then let's just put that to bed. Okay, so that's easy. I mean, because we're talking about enforcement, is there any physical way of making that limited so that we're not chasing it? And I'm not calling PD to go out and chase it and put a cruiser out there. I think the same way any, you know, entrance only is enforceable. I mean, I don't know. By making it narrower, right? Is how you do any, any sort of restricted movement is you make it physically uncomfortable to do it, to do the wrong thing. Well, but how do you do that when you're allowing, we're allowing truck entrance, right? Just we're not asking no egress and they need a certain amount of turning radius. So how do you narrow it down and still make it usable as an entrance for a truck and, you know, other than signage for egress or ingress only. Yeah, I feel a little, Marty, could you pan down a little bit? I feel a little uncomfortable going to having too much of an opinion on this because it is ultimately the board's decision. You know, there are different sized trucks that use this site. There are articulated, you know, WB 22s, there are non-articulate WB 22s. There's articulated WB 40s. I'm having trouble hearing you. I'm sorry. Not very good. No, I moved back from the mic. Sorry. Also, we have a T-coil if you wanted to use. Have a what? We have a T-coil. Or it'll work with your hearing aids if you have them. I don't have any. Okay. I thought we need them. All right. Just slide it off. It's really easy to set up. But it doesn't work on the stage. It only works in the audience. It's just really frustrating for many reasons. So, you know, there's a bunch of different kinds of trucks. There's articulated non-articulated heavy trucks, non-heavy trucks. Looking at this, I, because it's such a big site, it's hard to have a sense of scale. Like how much is a truck going to have to pull into oncoming traffic to go in or out? It would just make me feel better if there was like a little truck on there so I could see or like a turning movement or something like that. And Jesse, you didn't get a chance to prepare something like that, did you? Well, wait a minute. There's kind of a, we're not in a vacuum here. There's kind of a historical test. I mean, trucks have been going in and out for 20 years, haven't they? Or is this a new entry? Is this a pre-existing entry? Well, this had been to service that little parking lot. Okay. So not for dumping. Right. All right. So there was a change of use involved here, too. Well, this was part of the land swap that happened, the boundary line adjustment between us and Mobile Peaks about 10 years ago or something like that. My only point is, I guess, I'm wrong. There is not an historical record to go on for. We haven't been using that as an entrance ourselves for our activities, right? Okay. So, oh, okay. So you're basically hoping to start using it as an entrance for regular activities. And you're asking for entrance and egress and we're saying entrance only go down to the north entrance to egress, all vehicles. Right. So I'm looking at the Google Earth Street view and it has a gate across it. All right. So where do we want to go with this? I stick with my suggestion. One exit, one entrance. I mean one, yeah. One entrance. The northern entrance is also an exit. It's multi-purpose. Okay. You can do whatever you want there. Okay. The southern exit says entrance only, no exit. Okay. Can the board live with that? Okay. Thank you. Let's go on to number three. This is regarding cross-lot connection and thinking is that it's not necessary. Do you agree with staff that it's not necessary? Oh, the parking lot. I'm sorry, four. I'm sorry. I did skip ahead. Let's go back to three. This is a staff recommendation at the board direct the applicant to remove the storage area and located elsewhere on the site accessible from the northern access point. We'd like to keep that. I'm not sure what the need, what, why we would want to give that up, right? Marla, could you speak to that? Sure. So the comment here is by using that as equipment storage, you're going to have, I assume, and this is me making an assumption, equipment means like large construction vehicles. And so large construction vehicles get around on low voice or on some sort of, and so that necessitates use of that southern entrance by that type of vehicle. Well, we can circulate through just like we're talking about in the previous comment, right? So you're saying access to that to bar our drive would be limited by coming in there at where we just said we could use as an entrance and exiting on the north side. So we can still use it under those conditions, right? If that continues to work the way it needs to. Yeah. To be honest, I didn't expect the board's direction. I have to sort of predict what the board's going to say when I write these. So I didn't predict what the board was going to say for comment number two. And with that, if I had known that, I may have written number three a little bit differently. I understand. Can we leave, can we strike number three in that case? I'm not worried about it. So it's, it's not going to, we're going to say it's still entrance only. And in order to use that equipment storage area, they're just going to have to do one way past it. I mean, yes, it won't be, it won't be relevant in the decision, but functionally they'll have to go in past it and then keep going out the north. Okay. So, okay. So now we come to number four and this is regarding the cross lot connection, not being necessary. Right. And you live with that? We agree to the boulders. I think I came up with the idea. Okay. Okay. We come back to those later, I think. And at the top of page six, there's a comment that wasn't in red, but I'd like to call it out. Sorry for. Pardon. Oh, yep. You're right. The other comment on the boulders is later. You're right. So this, the first sentence says staff recommends the board confirm. There's no dumpster on the site for landfill waste. If there is the plan should be modified to provide enclosure. A small totter type waste receptacle does not require enclosure. Are we correct that there's no dumpsters? There's no dumpster. Okay. What do you mean by landfill? I mean, this is, this is a landfill. This is a clean construction fill. Oh, okay. Landfill waste is construction debris that's not for compaction and. I got straight change. I appreciate your support for my made up term there. I'm glad you understood what I meant. All right. Let's move on to comment number five. This is regarding. Pardon me. Let me read it. I think the staff report recommends the board and applicant carefully review the proposed modified language. And confirm it produces a clear, measurable and desirable final condition. And the language above it in the staff reports. In blue. Is I think what this is referring to. Right. So the first paragraph in blue is what they had proposed. And then we had thought maybe it could be simplified. Okay. More to the point. More concise. Yes. Right. That's fine. It's the same intent. Okay. You can live with that. Okay. Good. Thanks. Number six. This is the regarding the time limit for the permit. Should we have a time limit, a specified time limit or specify that it ends when the project's goals are reached? I don't see any point in a time limit. I don't see any point in a time limit. Okay. Anybody else? Permit is just having to do with the fill. Right. Yes. Okay. Not the use of it as a construction lay down area. Well, that's a separate comment. Okay. Where did that end up? Did that end up in red? I may not have ended up in red. So. I must have already passed it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Moving on. I think it was maybe comment 12. Oh yeah. All right. Okay. So yes, we will get to that. Okay. Moving on. Rehab plan. We have not seen a rehab plan. And I guess the question to the board is. Do we want to require such a. As a condition of approval. In view of the stormwater section comments below, which I'm sure you've already read. So if you wanted to circle back. So the rehabilitation plan is to show how the site should be buttoned up once the fill is done. So if you want to circle back to number seven. After we talk about the stormwater. Sure. Okay. Number eight. I'm going to read this. The proposed final condition will create an essentially level of I'm not following what that means. Well, so I don't really understand one you place construction waste materials. What happens then. That was a question for the applicant. And if it could be a building pad in the future, then the board needs to make a decision about what constitutes reconstruction grade. So that's a question for you guys. Oh, I see what you're saying. Basically. If they're laying down construction fill and they're compacting it to whatever percentages you're going to. That provides an acceptable pad for as a building pad or development pad in the future. We're saying that fine. The final grade is what we will use as pre construction materials. So that's a question for the applicant. I'm sorry. I didn't hear the question. I didn't see who it was from. Oh, well, I think we were sort of bouncing. Okay, right. So it's question. The question is at the end of the when you're done and the fill is at the height you're looking for. Is the intention that it will then become a development site? I think it's more likely we would. Try it. We would get it set up to be a true construction staging area. Okay. Lay down area. And then the way I understand it, we would have maybe different impervious surfaces and we'd have to come from the board or go through staff anyway to figure out what those percentages are. What, you know, what our setbacks are or whatever. That's the way I understand it. So I think that what we need to do is we need to put some sort of condition that says when the final grade is achieved, there has to be. They have to come back with a proposal for how the site's going to be used in the future with, as they said, you know, certain impervious surfaces as a construction staging area, a site yard, something that we, the rehab plan kind of is a semi moot point. If their plan is to come forward with then a construction staging use plan. So say in a future universe, ECI gets swallowed up by you know, some bigger construction company. Yeah. And they don't want to do that. Should there be a rehabilitation plan that says it shall be topsoil and seated or something like that. Yep. I think there's needs to be a sunset on after they've achieved their filled desire. If nothing occurs within X number of years, they have to implement the rehab plan. So, so I think that we could probably get to that in words tonight. And have it be a condition of approval. So do you understand what Mark's proposing? And do you think you can propose? What do you think could work for you? Can you put it in your own words, how you might be able to accomplish that? So to say once we're at the grade that's mentioned here in the surface area, that we have a certain period before we have to submit some sort of plan to do whatever we intend to do. Or triggers the rehab plan where you throw down some topsoil and grade. Yeah. Okay. That time period you think you need. Well, I mean, typically if you have a project, once you reach the completion of the project, you have 14 days to restore to final stabilization. So you have 14 days to either do temporary or final stabilization of exposed soils. Okay. So I would be happy to do that. Yeah. Yeah. You have 14 days once after you have disturbed an area to install temporary stabilization. But yeah, for permanent, we would do what you're mentioning, topsoil, seed, and mulch. So could the condition be that, you know, when you're getting close, you need to be thinking about what you're going to do next. And so if you, you know, you're going to be able to do that, you're going to be able to do that. You're going to be able to be thinking about what you're going to do next. And so if you get to done finished grade, then it has to be topsoil and seeded within that, within that closure period, unless you have a pending application before the board. To convert it. And you still have to meet the storm water grade stabilization regardless? Well, that was what, that's kind of one of my questions too is like, because this is kind of an open site, or I'm assuming if you're just putting fill in. Right, it's an MSGP. Are you, you're, I'm assuming you're stabilizing it within that 14 day window temporarily? Or are you not required to? It has low risk permit. Okay. So either way that, yeah, they're already subject to the 14 day. So there's conditions that regardless of what we do, they've got to meet? Yes. Okay. So I'll write the condition that says, um, site to be permanently stabilized with topsoil and seed per article 16, unless pending application before the board. Okay. Number eight, I'm going to read this. The proposed final condition will create an essentially level site. Staff recommends the board. That's the one we just did. That's what we just discussed. Oh, okay. So this is, we're combining this with a rehab plan. Okay. Got it. Got it. Number nine. I'm going to read this one. Slopes proximate, proximate to broad drive exceed 25% unless the applicant can demonstrate that the slopes in this area are human made as part of the expired approval or an older approval staff recommends the board require the applicant to modify the limits of the proposed fill area and exclude what remains. Oops, I lost it. What remains of these natural very steep slopes? I'm not sure I understand that, but does the board understand it? No. Okay. Marla, could you help us out, please? So sure. Reading from the paragraph above that, steep slopes defined as those between 15 and 25%. Very steep slopes are those over 25%. Human made slopes that are previously permitted by the city. So it has to be both of those things. Human made and previously permitted by the city are exempt from the definition of steep slopes. Development in very steep slopes is prohibited and development in steep slopes is pretty limited. So what they can do in those areas depends very strongly on whether they are human made previously permitted slopes or whether they are natural slopes. Okay. And so if they are natural slopes, the recommendation here is to say, okay, but you can't impact those slopes. You can't place fill in that area. If they can demonstrate that those slopes are both human made and previously permitted, then they can place fill in that area. What is your understanding of what those slopes are? So those must be the slopes from the north entrance towards Brard Drive. Is that right? Yeah. Where Marty's cursor is now. And the way we've planned this is to bring them up over those slopes, right? Correct, yeah. You'd be creating kind of a gorge on the site otherwise, right? If we could not fill, if we had to come with two on one side slopes from the toe of those slopes back up towards the finished grade we want to achieve, you're going to have this gorge in the middle of the site. And I did submit an exhibit yesterday, I believe, tomorrow, which is possibly the origin of these slopes where you can see in this 1962 ortho photo where they're kind of, you're clearing and leveling this whole area in order for it to be developed. And I think in the process of doing that, they probably just pushed material off and that's what created this like short 25 or steeper slopes along the west side of our site. But as far as it being previously permitted, I mean the only permit on the site is for the original. Right, and it's pretty vague. It just says, go ahead and fill it. Fill the 10 acre area. Right. It doesn't, and that's about it. So I feel like it's hard to say with any certainty whether they are natural or artificial, the steep slopes. I don't imagine it was a permit in 1962 and I don't know if it's completely shown on here, but I believe all this is tied to the interstate construction. I don't know if the image goes... Well, would it be convenient for us to say it is probable that the slopes were man-made or human-made? Board finds that based on the available evidence the board finds the slopes are human-made. Can we do that? I mean, you have to make a judgment call. And if you make the judgment call in favor of the applicant or against the applicant, it's still a judgment call. Okay. I don't have a strong preference on your way. Okay. Well, what does the board think about that language or that kind of conclusion? Okay. All right. Good. So does that answer that? Moving on. I mean, it's a plausible explanation and there isn't any other. Okay. Number 10. This is regarding the buffer between the site and the warehouse. There's no existing or proposed buffer between the site and the warehouse. And then there are some in the staff report some criteria. I'm having a hard time with this one, Marla, too. This is a very different kind of project for us. Could you explain number 10, please? So the requirement that the board is familiar with for screening between the similar site supplies here. If you look at the plan, there is an existing screening along Barard Drive. There's not really screening proposed to the north between this and the substation. And there's not really screening to the south between this and your warehouse. So when we do public comment, just for the new folks who joined us, we're going to have a public comment session at the end of the staff report. Thanks. So, yeah, did that answer the question? Normally there's screening. Normally the board requires screening to similar sites. There's existing screening along the road. The question is whether there should be screening between the north and the south or between, or between the north and the site or between the south and the site. So this is a board opinion, whether there should be or shouldn't be. And if we decide there should be, these are the applicable criteria. Right. What's the nature of the warehouse? What kind of warehouse? I'm not really sure. I don't even know if it's fully occupied. There might be some sort of kitchen type of store in the front, but I don't know about the back. I think recording stops. See how funny it's going to go ahead and power up the meeting. See what we're talking about. Power up the meeting. Big or bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger. Big or bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger. Big or bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger. And then walk the meeting for a second. I've never seen that before. Sorry. See, did you find the walk meeting button? Yeah, I saw it. Okay. everyone you clear the annotation then the riveting the riveting DRP good way to go Travis do you know which one is you so are we being recorded right now no I pause recording I see he's in the waiting room there you go all right I will resume recording thank you for your questions we had some interference that we had to take care of so we'll resume the meeting now we were discussing whether or not the board should require screening between the warehouse and the site my point was if if the warehouse is nothing but a warehouse and doesn't cater to customers of any kind simply a pickup and storage area right then you if the applicant would rather not me I don't see any reason to go screening but if it is something that where aesthetics have any impact at all then maybe there ought to be some screening you know if there's customers coming to the warehouse or potentially customers coming you know I don't know I'd like to know more about what's there the appliance store is a functional consumer fronting appliance store dryer there yeah okay but it's but the back at the back of it is functional truck in the park in the front of the house John did you say gee I wish there were screening I don't know it's so industrial I I'm not sure it's we should require it that's my opinion Frank you look like you're about to say something well you know I can I can go with the way to the board's judgment you know if there's any numbers I'm inclined toward some kind of barrier or screening okay fence if not screening or whatever it's cheaper but if the board isn't different I don't feel strongly about other board members weigh in I think if it's something that we has been operating in this capacity for as long as it has and I mean obviously we're waiting for public comment and you know if there's anyone valid online for public comment you know I'd like to hear that but if it's been operating this capacity for as for as long as it has without you know issue I think we can wait till if something is proposed down the road as an actual construction equipment staging yard with the future plans to implement screening and more typical site plan mitigation type this is not a beautification project right pending public comment right can we all live with that okay great thank you right didn't have a question Marty can you score back up to page eight I think there's a comment that maybe should have been read bottom of page eight right above the two there staff recommends I just didn't put it red because I didn't think there was any discussion that's needed but if you want to just okay I just anyone have a problem with that you just wanted to prove that you read every word John okay page 13 so once let me read comment number 11 if the other latter part of it if the applicant desires to continue use as a contractor's yard a portion of the site will be considered impervious and will require storm water treatment pursuant to the LDR and the site plan amendment will be required so that's kind of what was already discussed yeah okay pretty much once you're done and you want to start using it in a different capacity you're gonna come apply all the standard LDRs that's what I will have comments about what how we want to what we want to impose on the site moving forward yes okay I understand great thank you my only concern with that yes is they're currently using it as a contractor yard in addition to the fill area so if you wait and don't put that last bucket down then you're never done and you can use it as a contractor yard forever because you haven't put the last cubic yard to fill in so what that's my question does that matter why I mean a contractor you are is a perfectly legitimate use in the zone right well actually that's what I was just checking Frank because I should have put that in the purport but I did not so this is the IC non-residential uses and I see contractor building trade still oh boy this table is a little bit screwy yeah so that is a permitted use in this district but if you get to the next comment outdoor storage outdoor storage shall be pertinent to the primary use of property okay so now I'm seeing another way to interpret this if the primary use of the property is contractor yard in the future outdoor storage will be a pertinent to the use as a contractor yard so I guess that test would still be met okay okay so do we need to change the way I've drafted this I've said the primary use the property is a place to waste access materials and the secondary uses contractor yard can the primary uses be waste access materials and contractors yard and the secondary and the outdoor storage is a pertinent to both of those things is that an allowed use in this district then I don't see why not does that affect any of the our approval to our review the project tonight and any conditions that we have been discussing yeah I guess we've kind of been thinking about it as a fill site with some contractor yard accessory use so it does change the way a lot of it's written because reading this to it says after they're done to continue to use it as a contractor yard will be considered impervious and stormwater treatment will be required so again I'm just trying to think are we right so I didn't weigh anything we shouldn't by saying okay just don't finish and you can avoid having to do the wastewater treatment forever because you never actually finish the grade well I think that the state provides a bit of a backstop for that because of the MSGP the multi-sector general permit if it's considered an industrial site then it's under one permit and if it's considered a non-industrial say I don't know what you call it it would be under a different permit program I don't know help me out here yes if it's I'm just wondering if this is one of the reasons to put a time limit on it just what I was thinking so you're kind of thinking if we were to it would be a way of skirting having to come back and of course it wouldn't be you you're gonna sell this to somebody at some point and they're gonna have this permit so I'm not casting aspersions in any way it's just my previous experience has taught me to look for any particular loopholes that can get exploited at some point so do you have any idea your current rate of fill how much longer you anticipate it could be we look at five years 10 years 20 yeah in between those it depends on how much material we get on projects coming from projects so it's kind of from year to year that varies a lot okay and I guess that's my only thought is you know if you put a time limit on it then if they have to come back in 10 years then we can look well how much have you filled this in 10 years oh we haven't we haven't put a yard to fill in and five years well now it's a lay down yard it's not a fill site man does that change how we do things so I just I just want to make sure we're not creating a situation where someone some possible future owner could exploit things in the in the future well one way is that put it in the alternative the permit runs until the the you reach level grade or or 10 years whichever occurs first how about that and then come back and re-assess would you like it to expire in 10 years or would you like to expire if no fill has been placed for x period of time well that gets complicated yeah a bucket a year right right ten years is reasonable ten years well but they've been using it for 25 already what what percentage filled what are we about probably 70 percent or something I don't know I haven't done a earthwork takeoff from the original I don't think we have too much for original you know I mean a review in 10 years is not particularly burdensome and kind of opens up the question of in the last do you know in the last 10 years how much fill you put down I'd be guessing I'm just wondering because I guess why I'm what my thought at this point is is this a primarily a contractor lay down yard now yeah with very little fill activity as opposed to a fill site with a little bit of lay down yard if the if the amount of fill that's being put down on the site is is de minimis then it's really a lay down yard and should be treated as a lay down yard with a secondary uses as fill and then if there are stormwater requirements or anything else that go along with it being a lay down yard then that's what we should be imposing but we're actively filling so it's and that's that's my only question so and then the same question would be 10 years from now while are you still actively filling and if you are then great we keep going but if it's gone to the point where well we haven't really put down much fill in the last five years then maybe the next board says well okay now maybe you've become a contractor yard with a right and it's not that it's not permitted it's just needs to be looked at through a different lens is there any you know additional considerations at that time so can we go with that alternative first of first to occur reaching level level greater however you want to phrase that or 10 years that work for you guys mm-hmm yeah I mean we just we just come before the board again if we were still working safe it's what we want to continue doing so it shouldn't matter you could count you could just redo you generate a new existing conditions plan right essentially ten years you would compare it and you revisit the issue to see if I just wouldn't want a lot of new conditions coming in in ten years that what about this now you know the steep slope issue coming in or something or maybe the steep slopes are defined differently in the future or something you know well that's always going to be a risk well that's what I don't want to be ours get rewritten and right but on balance we shouldn't be protecting you now against that risk okay are we ready to move on we got that number 12 staff considers the primary use of the property to be a place to waste excess materials and the secondary used to be a contractor's yard we kind of just talked about this though the LDR does not have a defined use for waste excess materials or similar staff recommends the board confirm they agree with staff's interpretation that the outdoor storage associated with the contractor's yard is a pertinent as required by this criterion I think we resolve this haven't we okay 13 the question is what is meant by or equivalent when we're talking about boulders I was it would be just precast concrete or Jersey barriers is what I okay the meeting that how does the board feel about that well you know boulders look a lot better yeah so why don't we strike or equivalent can we hold didn't didn't we just say we didn't this site isn't about aesthetic improvement waste blocks can you live with boulders we can live with boulders okay thanks all right so we were in circle box number seven on page seven this is the about the rehab plan so what are our thoughts bored on requiring a rehab plan I guess I don't understand what a rehab plan is in this concept what are they rehab and when we discussed this earlier this evening didn't we talk about having as a just covering this as a condition right so when we talked about it in the context of stormwater and I think it was when we're talking about in the context of stormwater was talking about the rehabilitation plan just consists of topsoil and seed unless so this was staff comment number eight topsoil and seed unless they've already applied to do something else and that would be the rehabilitation plan so if we already covered that then I think we have yeah okay okay so that brings us to the end of the staff report board let me ask you this do you believe I know we need public comment but do you believe we have all the information we need to make a decision in deliberation right sure okay good thank you thank you they have all the information they need mm-hmm thank you very much we'll now take comments from the public I know we have someone in the audience who wants to comment anyone online Marty it was very strange it was like seven people joined all at once and I was like the something is going wrong they need a life all right thank you so would you like to step up and make your comments there's a microphone up here so our minutes taker is not in attendance tonight so if you could speak into the mic it'd be really helpful for her you own the gymnasium if I remember correctly okay my name is David and this is Mary Clifton we've been there for 35 years I could attest that there any retail it's going on the warehouse you're speaking of is done on the front of Burrard Drive with seven up it was the Vermont 10 company and now it's a flooring company and and the appliance place and all the buffering that's on the front now is you know fine I don't have any issues at all with the use of what they want to do but I do have to say that I don't think that anyone here has seen a truck come in that down that road yet my customers are terrified your videos do not show how less line site you actually have the one line site where they showed going north was taken from the left lane not the right lane when they pull out of there by the time someone sees them going on the corner gets to put on the break if they're doing 25 miles an hour it's going to be close unless you can enforce 25 miles an hour there will be an accident there all I suggest they do is take the egress move it down between the two buildings are there barards barnyards and Champlain Valley and there's other egresses there and you could just put them between instead of Caddy corner across and then they would have a great line of sight those trucks that are going in there cannot physically enter that egress without traveling in the left lane for the entire line site that you're show I have a video of this now provided it to the town as well it's just a bad place for it to be now they have doubled the size of the original egress in and there's the trucks are still running over the curb if you notice this thing where the curve was there's the gravel and then there's the lawn where the trucks are popping over it because they're trying not to go into that lane and on the way out you can't see them until you're into them okay so it's just a bad place to have that entrance it I don't know why it wasn't moved down unless you have something planned further down the road you'd have a huge line of sight in both directions now I sit on that same corner but I sit on the outside of the corner and I have total line of sight all the way down to our drive on both sides okay so I've had parents complain to me about it and I tell you it's an enforcement issue if you think a science and stop them the town told them not to go use that but use the north and for two weeks they just those truck drivers they just kept doing whatever they wanted to do yeah I have videos of them doing after they were told not to use that entrance anymore I have videos and then continuing doing it okay so you're gonna who's gonna stop that truck driver from going in that nobody unless you got a policeman sitting right there someone's gonna get hurt there bad I want you guys to know that I don't think anyone here has seen a truck go around that corner and going that egress and I'll think all but one person probably hasn't gone down there and seen it because the videos you have do not show how short that line of sight actually is and you have a lot of young children and families coming absolutely we had one that I should call the town because he almost you had to slam the brakes on with his kid in the car coming in so they were exiting out and I'll tell you something exiting out with a big truck is less dangerous than exiting in so I heard you're saying let's let him exit in there but you know I'm going like you guys got this backwards no one can see what's going on in there now to put that in there in the context when the Vermont company took over the building they wanted to have it a place for their access to a little storage area so Dick Ward who was the town manager thing said to me well that if they put it where they want it's gonna be exactly into our egress into the Knights of Columbus was just no longer there they said well if we just use this for a little storage area it was very little at egress you know do you mind it being directly across this thing is directly across from my entrance to my building okay it's not like halfway between the two egresses and I said sure but like you've now making a point what happens when someone buys it and does something else with it so it's been widened the curb cut has been put back it's still not enough for the trucks to make their turn and now we seem like no one's looking at this to sit I mean I have video on my iPad if you and your board members would like to see what a truck coming into there I can show you it right now okay but it's something that you I think you should be able to look at before you rule on I don't know if it's impossible for you guys to just move that entrance down the road well we put it I don't know if I need to respond to you guys right yes you did you know that was a question posed to me by you guys know so just what happens at a public hearing is the public makes comments to the board and then the board decides whether to that's right to pass the comments along and ask the applicant or to take the comments of the public into advisement so if mr. Clifton is complete with his comments then you guys should discuss what you'd like to do next I'm as complete as you can be without having a notepad with me because you know I could have commented on several of the issues as we went through it but there's no way that no 70 I remember all that I hear where you're coming from and I think that goes to Marla's comment about wishing she could see like a truck on it to see like the turning radius movements and I have it right here no I'm talking about like the the notion like the see in live action right a truck actually coming down for a drive they have to swing out to swing and exiting yes and you can see the line of sight of a car was coming what you'd be looking at physically can't stay on their side of the road and turn in well maybe we could just ask if you don't mind I would say one more thing though and I really I want to be able to do it why land in the way I want to without you know someone whining about you know every little thing but what's happened over the years of those heavy trucks on that road has taken such a toll on the road that starting last week people in cars had to move into the opposite lane going north to make that corner because there's so many potholes in there so now everyone's driving on the wrong side of the road and no one can see that coming on until you're right into them so you know that's a concern safety yeah sure can I put a question to go ahead Frank so thank you would you Frank is your mic still on yeah would you folks stay available we will stay so do you take issue with the general thrust of what they're saying about the situation on the ground with heavy truck you've disputed yeah I guess I'm not sure what they're saying is that it's more of a hazard they're saying it's not yet coming out to enter that to enter the southern exit is that right that's what they're saying that they have to that they can't enter well we've solved exiting but now we're talking about you're saying that's not good enough so what they're saying is in order to enter the southern exit a substantial truck has to drive in the left lane do you dispute that I would guess that's probably correct all right if that's correct and I think the public then I think the gentleman's comment seems to be pretty well taken we have to decide what we or the what we should ask the developer to do about that you have a proposal for how about his suggestion of moving the moving the entrance to a better line site and I appreciate your honesty by the way yeah well I think widening out the curb cut which may may be occurring because the trucks have to drive up over the curb I don't believe we've modified it but if it was widened out it would allow more turning radius or larger turning radius without having to to come out into that lane I don't know about moving it it's not a quick thing to do but it's possible it could get moved a little further to the north we could try to sort of what Marla was saying to I could try to create a plan where because it's not really a designed curb cut you know it's just a temporary construction road it's almost perpendicular so you I don't think it would be beneficial to narrow I think it would be widened and no you can't narrow it I and I'm looking and I see that what's your name I'm sorry David Mr. Clifton's driveway is almost almost directly across so anytime a truck has to pull in the left plane he's pretty much going into his driveway access right so so what I would suggest is there's a couple things happening on this plan that I'm seeing that Marty pulled up right there's the slopes that exist between Burrard Drive and the usable portion of the site there's some overhead utility lines looks like there might be a subsurface utility line as well I'm not sure Marty can you stop dragging it please and put your cursor see where the overhead utility line is and then there's another circle immediately to the right of that yeah that one what's that one Jesse is that a is that just like a there's the utility pole and then that's be probably no it's a concrete oh it's the old property line yeah well still the property line but yeah that's the that's a great monument right raise the old property corner but there is a telephone pole right there so we do that right one side of the other it have to be one side of the other I could see a scenario in which you know you asked for the board asked for a turning movement plan that relocated the driveway in such a location that it didn't require trucks to cross into the adjoining driveway but I think that that may be a little bit overkill here because there is a perfectly viable construction entrance at the north end of the site and any driveway that allows an articulated truck to come in here is probably gonna have you know a 30-foot curb radius and it's gonna require removal of a lot of those existing buffering trees and require a lot of earth disturbance so maybe the solution is just use what you've got heavy trucks north only yeah or or maybe it's worth it to say you know you if you if you see I really needs that southern entrance then the board has to weigh whether the impacts of allowing that southern entrance to be used are worth it I'm wondering and I don't want to create a problem but it might be a solution if you're talking about widening the driveway first of all we generally like it when they went when curb cuts are across from each other that's usually considered a desirable right rather than staggered instead of moving and I wonder if I assume you guys are not enemies and you have cordial relations with each other at least in general I wonder if you could get together and there doesn't seem to be any great urgency about this permit you know you've been doing what you've been doing no one's coming down on you we could continue let them come back with perhaps an agreed revised site to accommodate this concern what do you think so I think the board needs to revise some direction as to whether they should be looking at a revised curb cut or not well I think if they're gonna revise the curb cut then we want to see the turning movement that it works yeah right because they're gonna make any change to it then it needs to work and I can tell you right now that it's gonna have them it's gonna be a pretty big area of disturbance and it's gonna require removing some trees to get to a solution that works and if that's okay then that's fine I just want to be clear that you know there's not gonna be a tiny tweak that's gonna make this work I'm gonna ask a question of the applicant what from an operational standpoint is the northern most entrance and a non starter for bringing your heavy trucks in for fill or is it just an inconvenience right now we're kind of pinched off a little bit but we can we could make it work we would just like the option to try to figure this out right well that's I'm I'm I think that providing them with the opportunity to present something that's we can believe and live you know prove it to us and to the the neighbor that it is something because I think one concern I have is that regardless of the whatever you develop if truck drivers are used to turning out to turn in no matter what you do that's their inherent nature to do it well I mean forever you know if it works I see I hear just saying but so yeah I want to hear again from the applicant who is making some hand gestures but what about the idea not not closing tonight but asking the applicant and their neighbors to go away and figure this out and come back to us at a later date but let's let's just hear what Mr. Clifton has to say if that egress had been angled on the way in would work on the way out would still put the truck in your lane as you come around the corner from a blind corner okay so either you blow out every tree that's in there and then you're looking at whatever's in that storage area or you're you're good you're running blind they could come in that way if they angled it but I don't know how they're going to get people not to go out that way but I just if you look at the line of sight if you move down pretty far yeah you can move your cursor where are you you're in the wrong yeah go north right yeah stop right there well back up a little bit a little bit south yet right there if you come out you can see all the way down both sides or further and you can't see so you can't see who's coming around that corner but you can't see and I have to tell you this right now this has nothing to do with these people are my people there's two stock cars are running but down that road to 70 miles an hour there's a 70 miles an hour drifting sideways around the corners there's a rally car that does the same thing there's people just running their motorcycles up and down it is a further up bar our drive there's a new motorcycle repair place and those guys are ripping up and down the thing like crazy so you know if they want head first into a dump truck it doesn't bother me but it does bother me when my kids pull out and or they go to go in and there's a truck exiting out and it's right in their face so I don't know why it can't be I don't know who would want that for an egress the Vermont tech company wanted to park some things in there they would come in and drop some trailers in late at night the next couple days they'd load it up when no one was around early in the morning they'd come in and take the thing out and you know that one that went on for 20 20 years you know they were they're loading up to tents in there too and it was never a problem but if you're using up for a daily egress you know you this system at our time until it happens did you have any other questions I'd be glad to speak with them and try to work out whatever they want to do but I mean I think we've already kind of established that this would be entrance only and then we would want to see them come back with a revised driveway entrance that works so a truck does not have to turn out into swing into the opposite lane to make the turning movement that's that's what we're asking for this location than it would be shifted further to the north right that's that's sort of what we're saying okay when we think mr. if you talked to mr. Clifton that would be a pretty good if you guys came in an agreement that would make our job so subject to stuff in his review how long do you think it would take you to put your heads together it's I'm sorry I just I just need to interject I mean sight lines and turning movements are our science right it's evidence of traffic expert but there are actual professionals and I think that while it there is a lot to be said for what happens on the site the merits of a professionally designed driveway plan should not be discounted either okay so how does one get those well I think that Krebs and Lansing is a professional engineering firm that can design it and then using the input of the Clifton's who have a lot of on the ground experience and of you know Ken's drivers who also have a lot of on-the-ground experience yeah take your worst-case scenario for truck movement and prove to us that what you're proposing will work and isn't going to be in conflict with mr. Clifton's business operations and compromising the safety of the many kids that come and go I mean you get pardon that not always been engineering for right roadways right you know there's a lawnmower company that's bringing trailers around that corner and well here we go yep you know those things don't stop very fast well I think we take safety very seriously so the motion timeline so sounds like the board wants to continue we need to revise materials two weeks before the continued hearing so the first available would be October 17th if you could get stuff to us by the beginning of October does that feel reasonable yes okay all right sure is that something that the town would look into how is that so they would repair their proposal and then we have traffic professionals and Department of Public Works who would be reviewing it thanks and that's why we need it two weeks early so that we can actually send it through those folks so I have a question to sure as part of this can we trim back some of the vegetation on that curve to improve your sightlines to improve sightlines it's if you can convince the engineers and if you can you know demonstrate the third in radius works and at the site lines work I'm not saying that's the only thing we would do but just to help supplement what we come up with I mean I would rather compromise a few shrub shrubs and trees than the safety of families and children I think it's a combination of stuff and I think if that does improve your sightline around that angle then I would support that but I think it's got to be a combination right bunch of mitigating 100% agree it's got to be maintained yeah that would be the cost of the buffering from the storage things are right if you go and look at it I that's the first thing I thought of because I tried to get that tried to help the front tank company to cut that back in the town sorry can use the mic if you're gonna thank you I think someone has to look at that your planner whoever it is your engineer because it's only gonna give him another 20 feet or 20 yards it's not gonna it's not gonna make a big difference the problem is that that's an inside of a corner that entrance and so even if you got rid of all the trees it would still be a little you know someone have to be really paying attention when they're driving down the street that there's a truck coming up on that road about them out so I if you look how close it is I think that that you know is is a tough one that like I said if they're entering on an angle and no one ever could physically exit on the angle you know it might work but I you know you look at it I've been there for years and I you know with and they have cut the trees back already from where they were and I'm not you know a tree hugger but if nothing's gonna be in there that's unsightly whether the buffers gonna be moved back then you know it doesn't matter to me whether the buffers moved back but whether it's if it's something gonna be stored there it's gonna be tough to you know that's not an improvement but the other the other question is whether that by doing that you're stopping the trucks from going on the wrong side of the road to enter in or you're just allowing people to see them on the wrong side of the road mm-hmm okay have a collision yeah okay well we have some good minds that can get together and come up with a plan to present to us in October so let's so I would entertain a motion to continue this hearing until October 17th so moved second any discussion all in favor say aye opposed no thank you for your patience and your cooperation thank you for your time okay the minutes of September 6th looked at those have folks read the minutes from September 6th okay would someone like to any comments on them no okay all right any do we have a motion to approve move to approve a second all in favor aye opposed good okay thank you actually it took longer than we thought but I think I think this was good