 Thank you, Mark. Can you say something? I want to see if the echo still exists. Yeah. Is it still existing? No, it's pretty good. Thanks. Sounds like the old mark. We're going to do a deliberation. Yeah. All right. Well, good evening and welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board meeting of Thursday, October 6, 2022. My name is Dawn Filibert. I'm the chair of the DRB, and I welcome you tonight and thank you for coming. With us tonight are fellow board members, John Stern, Quinn Mann, Stephanie Wyman, and online participating, virtually is Mark Baer, Dan Albrecht, and Frank Kochman. Also with us from the city of South Burlington, Marlekeen and Marty Gillies, both development review planners. There are a number of ways to participate in this hearing. Obviously, one is to attend in person. If you do so, would you please sign in in the back table to register your participation? If you're attending virtually, we ask that you register your name by signing in and the chatroom function with your contact information. If you're on the phone, you may sign in please by emailing Marla at m-k-e-e-n-e at southburlington-v-t-dot-gov. The importance of signing in with your contact information is to be an interested party should you ever wish to take any action for any of the projects. Thank you again for attending. We ask that you keep your microphones muted and your cameras off during the hearing unless you're recognized and want to speak to provide public comment. If you wish to participate during public comment, you can either indicate that in the chatroom or turn your camera on and raise your hand and we'll recognize you. And the chat function is for administrative purposes only. It's not part of the public record, so we ask that you not communicate with each other amongst yourselves on the chat function. Item number one on the agenda, emergency evacuation procedures. At the back of the auditorium there are doors on each side. In the event of an emergency, you would exit those doors and then either turn right or left to go outside. Item number two on the agenda, are there any additions, deletions or changes in the order of agenda items? Hearing none, we'll move on to number three, announcements and reminders. This hearing is being recorded and I think we've covered the other kind of requests around how to participate, so I'll move on to number four. Are there any comments and questions from the public that are not related to the agenda? Hearing none, we will move ahead with agenda item number five. And that is continued site plan application SB 22020 of Negley and Chase Construction to construct a single story 21,790 square foot office building, create 260 square feet of outdoor storage and associated site improvements at 39 Bowdoin Street. Who is here for the applicant? David Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates. Hi, David. David, can you make sure your mic's on by pushing the button? Are there any disclosures or recusals? Yes, I need to recuse from this item. OK. Don, I'll just disclose that I designed the building adjacent to it, but it was years ago and I have no financial vested interest in either projects at this time. OK, thank you, Mark. Any others? OK, I'm just trying to find it on my screen here. OK, so Dave, we have a staff report and I'm sure you've read it and we have all read it. And I'm wondering before we go through it and ask for your thoughts about each comment and ask the board to weigh in if you have any introductory comments you'd like to make. No, I think staff report has done a nice job in regards of summarizing the fact that we started with one particular assumed upland footprint in regards to the site. We actually had it delineated when we asked the person to come back and re-delineate it. He said, oh, no, that's not right. So anyways, we ended up with a lot much smaller in regards to the upland area that's available for development. And as such, we asked for the board's indulgence in continuing this application so that we could revise this particular project to essentially be nearly half the size of what it was originally proposed so that it would fit better within the available upland area. So that being the background, that's where we came from and where we would like to be going in the future. And many of the components are similar in nature in regards to the relationship of the building to the street. There are some corrective components in the application or the staff report, I should say, that we agree with. And with that, also, it should be recognized that we won't be closing the hearing tonight. There are enough things that we need to basically get to staff and to the board in order to basically complete the record. So that being the background, it would be useful still to go through the red items and have a general consensus on how best to proceed. OK, thank you. Let's start with number one. And this is a request for an explanation for sheet HB1.0 regarding height of the building. That's correct. Didn't know if you wanted to read the entire thing. So anyways, embarrassingly enough, we'd actually created a plan HB1-0 which identified all the existing grades at the corners of the building, computed the average grade, identified the building height in relationship to the finish floor, identified how we demonstrate compliance actually with numerous feet to spare and forgot to include it in the application. So that's on me. And we will follow up with staff so that you will have a more complete application at this future continuation date. What is the proposed height? I knew Marla would ask that question. So to spare my eyes, I enlarge this particular one. And the height of the building itself is 30.37 feet. When you take into account the average disney grade and where the finish floor is proposed, the average, well, the design height, computed height, ends up at 31.39 feet. And what is the limit for that area? The limit is 40 or as limited by the CNAP Protection District, whichever is shorter. All right, great. Thanks. Thank you, David. Number two, this is regarding the front yard setback and a waiver for that. The request is to go from 50 to 30 feet. And the question from staff is, is that OK with the board? So it asks folks to weigh in on that. So background is this is so we originally approached the board back in 2019 with a project of this particular character, a little bit bigger at the time, with a similar request as far as waiver. At that time, going through a sketch plan, it appeared acceptable to the development view board. And again, in this world in which we're now adopting form-based zone, which asks you to bring buildings closer to the street, but at the same time being the IO district, it's supposed to be open space. We're trying to balance those particular policy goals, of course, that the IO district are the standards. But as such, we're asking for a waiver for the board to allow the building to be placed closer to the street rather than the full 50-foot setback. And I think that's the background. Thank you. Board, what do you think? If I could just interject briefly. I think the requested setback is 35 feet. And looking at the site plan, they need 30. So that was my comment was just. OK. Yeah. So it wasn't 50, it was they want a waiver to go to 30 feet instead of 35. OK. Well, instead of 50, they were going to go from 50 to 35. They need to go from 50 to 30. OK. Right. So anyways, what happened as part of this reorientation of the building unbeknownst me, staff decided that in order to get a best fit, that we should get this many feet closer to the street. So I had carried forward the original request. And staff has corrected me on that again. So, Board, what do you think? We're talking about five feet here. To me, it makes sense that it maximizes the open space in the back part of the parcel with the wetland back there. So and the abutting parcel and stuff, whereas if it was deeper in, it would reduce the open space. So thanks, Jan. Other thoughts? My only, I guess, not concern or thought on this is that this is probably one of the last, well, no, not the last, but down in this area, probably the last building that will get built, except for possibly across the street. But all the other ones and all the other ones do have the 50 foot setback. And it's on a corner. So I'm just wondering if it's going to. But again, it's an IO district. So I'm not too concerned about it for changing the character of the neighborhood because it's commercial. So that would be my only comment, but I don't really have an issue with the request due to the location and corresponding neighboring commercial properties. Thanks, Mark. Other thoughts, comments? I will say I don't have a problem with that. I think it makes sense in the context of the whole project. Any other comments? OK. Are we in agreement that it's OK? Can people live with that? OK, good. Over to item number three. And this is about the snippet park or the parklet. It needs some permanent seating to comply with the LDRs. Yes. So we'll bring this back to our landscape architect. I think we're all learning about the new amenity space. And we missed this one. So at this point, we'll come back with a corrected version that complies with the requirements. OK, thank you. Number four, need to connect the sewer line outside of the class to wetland buffer. Is that possible? It is possible. My frustration as an engineer is that the original project infrastructure, which of course relied upon the old wetland and delineations that have since changed, Mother Nature's taken back some of her land. In this particular case, the sewer stub was left at a particular location. This application said, why tear up the street when you can tie into something that was originally planned? And the challenge is that the land development regulations really don't provide enough flexibility for this particular type of connection. So that's what is being highlighted right there is how to basically get from the proposed building to that particular previously left sewer service stub. And the alternate would be is that rather than we move westerly or left on this plan, is that we actually just come out to the street. But it is possible. Yes, it is. OK, thank you. Any questions from the board? Number five, staff has identified a need to revise the trip generation calculations and establish peak hour trip generations to calculate traffic impact fees. So we included the original traffic impact study, which was obviously for larger building, but at the same time within the cover letter did recalculate those particular PM peak hour trip ends. And no need to quibble. We can obviously ask the consultant to update the traffic impact study to reflect exactly what's proposed before the board, or we can take the information that's within the cover letter. We'll work out with staff, but at the same time, if you're looking for a consistent document, then I guess revising the TIS would be the best way to go. And I just want to add, I meant to say this at the beginning, that I know in one of your letters you reiterated the staff comments in red and then had written comments. So I tried to follow along, but they didn't match up. I couldn't get a Marla's staff report to match the numbers in yours. So and they wouldn't. I mean, bottom line is staff has created a brand new set of plans. What we had tried to do in the cover letter was basically take the old issues. I got it. OK. Try to provide some additional information to allow staff to then digest and say, OK, yeah, they've addressed those. But of all the ones they didn't address, we're going to reformat it in the current. OK. So I don't have to feel guilty about making you answer. Not at all. Can I ask a question about the traffic? With such a small number of trips, is there a reason you wanted to do a more detailed study or a reason just the standard ITE values don't cut it? No. At this point in time, the cover letter basically utilizes the ITE values to generate the proposed regulated trip ends for the project. And the traffic report currently talks about a bigger building. So from a consistency standpoint, the question is, is how do we go from a report for a larger project to something smaller? I tried to bridge the gap with simply a paragraph that talked about how the square footage values that were included in this particular report were downsized to reflect what is being proposed today. I think we just had a little trouble reading this paragraph that's on the right-hand side page to understand what the trip generation was now. It sounded like you were doing some complicated math. But I think it's OK to just say the old traffic study is thrown out. The project's a different project. And this is what the trip generation is. I don't want to throw it totally out. But nonetheless, I think there's reasons it should be reviewed in more detail than we're happy to do so. But I think for the record, probably the best thing is to perhaps get an addendum from the consultant who prepared the traffic impact study and indicate that based on the revised proposal before the board that these are the trip ends, the findings and conclusions in regards to no undue adverse impact on the receiving streets would still be the same because now the project's even smaller. So for those people that are be looking at this 30 years from now, I think it's important for us to connect the dots for them. So I think from an obligation standpoint, I'd like to at least allow the record to indicate that if somebody looks at the traffic impact study that was for a big project, that at least there's a supplemental document by the same consultant that tells you that, gee, it's been downsized. And these are my professional opinion on what the numbers are. You've got my professional opinion on what they are. But nonetheless, I think as far as just continuity, it would be best just to get that memorandum. Thank you, Dave. Number seven, request to modify the plans of the driveway aligns with the driveway on the opposite side of the street. So this is probably number two as far as the things we'd like the board to help us out with. This is a discussion point that we had again with that original 2019 project. And maybe if we can find sheet 1.0, one thing that we try to do when we're putting roadways across from each other is to make sure that if there's going to be crossing traffic, that it's easy to do so. That there aren't jogs and things that can create conflict. The other thing that's beneficial with regard to the line of driveways across from each other is that you can see the person in the opposite driveway. So when you approach the intersection and somebody else is looking to come out into the street also, that you can also recognize each other either through sight or through returning movements, signals, and things of that nature, what is going to happen so that we can avoid conflict. And if we zoom in on that top right portion of C1.0, you'll actually see that there aren't any driveways that are aligned in this particular area. Not saying that it's a good thing or a bad thing, but as far as point number one that we wanted to make, there are no cross traffic movements that you're trying to. So in this particular case, what is opposite of the proposed project is the CBA insurance company or the processing group. They have, it's not like the people that will be occupying this contractor's yard are going to be going over to the CBA. So the need to align driveways, at least for movements back and forth, unlike a public street where you want to basically make sure that everything's aligned because you're going to have a lot of that cross movement. We don't have that here. The other side of the coin, number two, where you do have, need to have that eyesight, the ability to basically see each other, couple of things on this particular application. One, just because of the fact that metal and drive is a dead end roadway, it's never going to go further to the east, just because of the amount of wetlands. Corps of engineers made that quite clear 20 years ago. So that being the background, all the traffic that comes in and comes out is really going to be focused on the west side of this particular line. So we envision that most of the traffic movements will occur at that location and that will be very minimal movements on the other side. The other challenge that we had with again trying to align with the, it's identified as chase properties on this plan was the fact that we also have a loading dock that we're trying to basically enable loads larger deliveries to this contractor to come in and be able to logistically get into the spot. So we tried to basically figure out a way that you could do that opposite way and it just didn't seem to make a lot of sense. So with that, we felt very comfortable that, A, we weren't going to have high traffic levels, two, that when you look at the other driveways and their lack of matching, we don't have identified problems with those particular uses in this particular part of the park. So we're not saying that we're trying to basically get away with things that aren't ideal, well, maybe we are, but what we're trying to do is identify that there are no issues with this particular alignment based on this limited amount of traffic. Thank you. So given the rationale that Dave has just provided to us, our board members feeling like having the driveways align is not as important as it, we were led to believe it might be. Yeah, the problem with that is, I think in this case, the language of the regulations is inescapable. The question is, is it physically and functionally feasible to make them align? And Carla is saying, it is physically and functionally feasible. I don't hear the applicant contesting that. And I think that makes it kind of open and shut, whether or not the underlying reason for the rule is compelling in this case. So, oh, sorry. I'll let you, go ahead. So I was just going to chime in and the applicant can maybe speak to this too. It seems like part of the functionality is this loading dock. And so it sounds like, because my initial thought was you can line them up, it doesn't matter what these buildings are used for now. Maybe in the future, there is a connection, right? But because of what you are building here, there's going to be a loading dock here. So that might be applicable for future uses of this building. And the way I'm looking at the plans and your explanation, it sounds like the functionality component. Frank, to your point, it seems like there might be a sticking point to align those, because then that wouldn't be there. And I'll let the applicant. So, Frank, you bring up a good point, Quinn. I thought you were going to steal my thunder there in regards to the fact that when you try to basically move a truck, or a semi, for lack of better quotable terms, with an alignment that is opposite of CBA, you just can't get it all the way back in to that particular location. Now, I think probably what we need to do is provide you documentation on those particular efforts. So, that being the background, that is the homework that we need to do in order for an educated decision to be able to be made in regards to, as Frank points out, whether it's practical and capable or not. No, the word is feasible, which is a very harsh standard for you to have to overcome. Perhaps you can. I don't know, but I'm stuck on that word. I have a question for staff. Is there a maximum width of the curb cut? Is there a limit to how wide that curb cut can be? I don't know under the current regulations. I could have told you off the top of my head for the old ones, but I don't know off the new ones. What's your thinking? Well, my thinking, I know it creates more impervious space, but let's face it, this is a commercial area with commercial buildings and commercial traffic. You just make that curb cut go more to the north at the top of the screen if that's north, and then it'll match up with the other one. And we've met, we didn't write these regs, we just have to be sure they align. So it means quite a large driveway, a large curb cut, but it would meet this, it would align the access point with the curb cut across the street. And make it very easy to plow and make it very easy for any kind of trucks or medium sized trucks to get in and out. Your thoughts, Dave? It's very practical commercial application. I think the probably one thing that we run up against is the 30% maximum coverage within the frontage of a commercial use on a street. So the idea is that you're maintaining a certain amount of the green space, landscaped area between the building and the street itself. And as we elongate that particular entryway becomes operationally very efficient, but I think it may put us up against the edge there. If we had a really long frontage, like we actually do on the south side, wouldn't be an issue at all. So I think that's the homework that would need to be done on that end in order to see if there's a middle ground. Yeah, to me, that would be make that curb cut as big as you can up to 30, 29.9%. Unless we can waive that. I see Marla shaking her head. I think this is a ludicrous solution. I think that we could argue that that is not a functionally feasible driveway that is 60 feet wide because it results in a free-for-all. It's the gas station driveway where no one knows where to look for cars. I would argue that that would not create. I would agree with that. I mean, the whole concept of limiting the size of a curb cut is to control the traffic flow where the right side is ingress, the left side is egress as you're coming in. And if you over widen it, you've got multiple ingress egress across the width of it. And I think it stops being a driveway and starts being almost like a parking lot on the street. Right, but the problem I have with this rag is we're letting language about curb cuts matching up drive the location of the building and drive this application, okay? Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you, Dan. I'm just saying, I think that- To me, the standard here is physically and functionally feasible. And moving the driveway to match up would not make it feasible. And I will argue in favor of the applicant's design right now. Can I ask you a question? Go ahead, John. Why, thank you. Why are there not two driveways, one for the parking area and one for the trucks? You look at it and say, why not? Well, I think in this particular case, the goal has always been to minimize curb cuts. That's a mantra that's been out there for 25 years. So we've been trained over time to try to minimize that. As it is, this particular corner lot actually proposes two curb cuts, one on each street, mind you, but it is consistent with what OnLogic has a little bit further to the west. So I thought we were already pushing the limits a little bit in regards to that particular aspect. I like the circulation component. And I think emergency services would like the anything to do as far as being able to get through here. We did include or had intended to include the fire department and turning movements. They're easier to move through because their vehicles are not as long as a tractor trailer. But nonetheless, innovative idea. But again, I think it starts to kind of run against some of the other policies. So what I've drawn in the green and orange is just sort of an illustration of what Marty and I were saying in the staff comment, which is that as they have it, trucks are backing on the road. If they were to have a curb cut that was over here, the backing movement could happen off of the street in the orange. So the green would be the truck backs up on the street and the orange would be the truck backs up. And I don't know if that works or not because I'm not driving the auto-turn truck, but that's sort of the idea that we had. And this is the type of thing that we need to fill in the blanks for you on to make sure that it either works or it doesn't work because that is the standard. So do you want to give this some thought? Talk to your team and come back to us. Okay, absolutely. Great, thanks, Dave. Okay, number six, or eight, I'm sorry. This is about the kind of screening of the dumpster. Actually, I thought we had included typical detail on sheet C4.4. So it ended up on the miscellaneous details and could have been missed or maybe it never got submitted. So I think that's not a lot of, no need to spend a lot of time on that now. You know what the regulation is and okay, good. Thank you. Sorry, what sheet did you say that was? C4.4, thanks. Number nine, this is, we need a draft easement document prior to closing the hearing. That is correct. Perfect, okay. Number 10, my iPad is not behaving. There we go. The applicant needs to address. Oh, I guess we didn't, we meant to change this one. This one, Fire got back to us after we finalized this report and they said that the turning areas were okay. All right, there's one less. It's okay, all right, good. Yeah, that's perfect. Perfect. Okay, number 11. I don't know what happened to that comment because we do have it there. We need one more long-term bicycle storage and closed locker. So we'll revise the floor plan to reflect that requirement. Great, thank you. 12, this is about the dispersal, is that a word, disbursement, of shade trees and the parking lot. We need five shade trees and they need to be not just on the edge. Guilty is charged. Perfect, thank you. We'll go back to landscape architect and ask for those revisions. Great, thanks. Number 13, and this is a call for a more diverse mix of tree species. Similar response. Perfect, good, thank you. Number 14, where will the snow storage be? Actually, it is called out on that plan. So you see the light blue shading and the call out in the far top right? Yeah, my apologies, Dave. I think this is an older version because I think we had changed this in the staff report because I remember reviewing it and commenting on the snow storage and on the fire truck. Okay. No, I think there were sheet C21, has a conflicting snow storage call out from sheet L11 and I just wanted to clarify through this. Well, I think that's probably the best thing we can do is to make sure that all the plans are consistent with each other. So Marty will take that under advisement as far as how to reconcile any conflicts there. Thank you. 15, I'm going to read this. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide a project cost and values of each of the landscaping elements included in the landscaping plan before the conclusion of the hearing. Done. Okay, perfect, thank you. Didn't get submitted. My fault. Number 16, I'm going to read this too. One of the lights included in a cut sheet submitted by the applicant does not meet the downcast and shielded requirements. Staff recommends the board include a condition that only the lights specified on the plans and not all the lights included in the cut sheets be permitted. That's correct. So one thing that actually the sketch plan included was a number of exterior building wall what's the word I'm looking for? Just the washing of the door of the walls and somebody said, do you really need all that? And we said, I guess not. So we took it away, but forgot to take it out of the package of proposed lights. So it needs to be corrected accordingly. Okay, thank you. And the last comment, number 17, how will the roof comply with the LDR energy policy or requirements? So it needs to definitely be made solar ready as far as infrastructure associated with conduit and penetrations of that particular nature to allow for the PV panels to be added in the future. I think those particular things do need to be added on the plans to make sure that everybody's aware of those obligations and not only the site plans but also the architectural plans. So we'll add those call outs as part of the resubmitted package. Great, thank you. So we're going to be continuing this hearing but before we ask for public comment, do any board members have any additional questions about this project? Hearing none. Are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this project? Do we see any in the comments? No, okay. Okay, I would entertain a vote to continue this hearing. To what date? Sorry, microphone was off. If we do November 1st, is that gives you about two weeks to turn around revisions? Is that okay? A good goal to shoot for. Great. They're not major as far as the required changes. So we're comfortable that November 1st it is. So the motion is to, do we have a motion to continue this hearing to November 1st? No. So moved. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion is carried. We'll see you back here on November 1st. Thank you for your time. Thank you, David. Okay. Moving on. Stephanie is back with us. Good evening. How's it going? Okay. Agenda item number six, continued final plat application SD 2210 of O'Brien Eastview, LLC to create a planned unit development of six existing parcels, currently developed with three single family homes and a barn and totaling 102.6 acres. The development is to consist of 155 homes plus additional inclusionary offset units in single family duplex and three family dwellings on 11 lots totaling 23.9 acres, 18 commercial development lots totaling 39.8 acres and 25.2 acres of undeveloped or recreational open space 500 Old Farm Road. Do we have any recusals or disclosures? I will disclose that I own a property on Hillside and O'Brien Farms, but I don't believe that it will bias me in any way. Any others? Okay. I just realized I didn't swear Dave in. Well, he'll be back and I'll swear him in the next time. Okay. And we've sworn you guys in because this has continued. I think so, but we can do it again if you want. Would you identify yourselves please? Sure, Andrew Gill with O'Brien Brothers. I'm Scott Homestead, engineer for Creston Lansing Consulting Engineers. Thank you. Carolyn Orban from Wagner-Houghton. Oh, hi Carolyn. You've been sworn in, haven't you? Yes, I have. Any other members? If we got a short, small team tonight. Okay, good. All right. Before we start going through the staff report, do you have any very brief comments you want to make? We are excited to be narrowing down on the final issues here. So our whole team's ready to go and it's been a long process. It seems like we're getting close to the end. So thanks for all your patience and dedication on it. Well, we appreciate it. All right. Let's dive in. Can I make a brief comment? Okay, I'm listening to a city, would you mute your meetings? Would you mute your microphone please? City of South Burlington. All right, I'm just gonna go ahead and mute them. Okay. And yeah. So the packet is spare on backup materials because the last meeting date had all of the backup meeting materials. So this is just the stuff that I thought was the sheets that were needed. If you need anything else, please go back to the September 6th. No. 20th. September. No, two meetings ago. Yeah, two meetings ago. Please go back to that packet if you wanna see anything else. September 7th. Okay, that was all I had to say. Okay. Let's find the first comment. Comment number one. This is a question about are we going to allow one-story buildings? Tell us a little bit about that, Marla, please. Sure, so the C1LR is the, Marty, if you could zoom in a bit or just on the split or something, however you wanna do it. Cool. C1LR is sort of the right-hand side of the project. And the applicant has asked for this conceptual approval. So you see there's not any buildings on the right-hand side. And then the board said, okay, we can grant you this conceptual approval. You've shown us a concept and you've shown us the parameters. And one of the things we'd like you to do is make the buildings no less than two-stories tall. I had a conversation with Andrew and Andrew said, oh, some of those smaller interior buildings we'd really like to make maybe one-and-a-half stories tall and maybe even one-story tall. So I would say go to the next page, maybe. And that should be the C1LR. But I don't know if you wanna describe which buildings you were hoping could be shorter. Sure, yeah, so all the buildings on the plan are sort of planned to be two or three or more stories tall. I mean, obviously we've talked about this section in a bunch of times. The height waiver that we're looking for to be building four-stories is sort of the thing that's been driving the whole design of this site. The two buildings, or maybe there are three buildings shown in this concept plan that we sort of think could be one-story and work pretty well in the site are the three that are sort of at the top of the page. So the one that is like backing up to Kennedy Drive, if you go up a little bit, it says retail commercial, it's kind of like a bigger, that one, right? So that building sitting 30 or 40 feet above Kennedy Drive, it's not really very visible from the street. It's set back from the road, there's a pretty heavy screen there. It's sort of meant to be more of a, like a sort of anchor tenant for the development. Conceptually it would be great if it was a small grocery store of some sort. And those things just aren't really normally, or maybe it's like a small retail outlet, some sort of anchor that would bring people to the community. And so with where it's set in the site, we just thought one or one and a half stories and a nice facade sort of facing the plaza would make sense. It doesn't really seem to need to hold Kennedy Drive much. And the other building was the one that's totally surrounded by the parking, where it's sort of designed to be, well, so that pavilion would certainly want to be able to be one story. I think it's meant to be more of like a community event type pop-up area. And then the building surrounded by the parking the mouse is on now was the last one where we were hoping one and a half stories, just to not really have to be at two stories because it's sort of designed to be a small retail shops that would be accessed from both sides of the parking area. Think about like a meat market or a bagel bakery or I mean, those types of things, a dry cleaner stuff services for the neighborhood. And it's sort of not, or a cafe or something like that. I have a question, which is why were we insisting on two stories? I don't recall that decision and what the rationale was. I think you guys were focusing more on the buildings along the road and the sort of need to like hold the street and make a nice streetscape and sense of place. And we certainly support that. I think the vision supports that. I think it just sort of got applied across the whole project. And I think we're just asking to do a little bit of more nuance to it to sort of exclude these three buildings or these three. Well, I hear you, I hear you, but I'm kind of asking staff and other board members, is anybody? Can we do one story, Marla? Yeah. I mean, I think that there was the interest in not having this be like a, well, it can't be just the sort of retail, Williston outlets, or is that Williston? Outlet center, Essex Outlet Center kind of building because there's a limit to the amount of retail that is allowed in terms of square footage. I think it's 15,000 square feet per building and 5,000 square feet per tenant. But I think there was some concern that without having this be, this is the C1LR. So C1 is commercial one limited residential. It's intended to be a mixed use area. And so without requiring at least two stories, there's less of a guarantee of mixed use and more likely to be just kind of strip mall development. What are the other two buildings in that square? The ones that he did not identify as one story. What are they? Those, right, those two. What is their use? This one's for me. Yeah, I think so. So the, you know, I think the plan currently is a mixed use building. So some residential, potentially commercial retail uses. So, you know, any retailer commercial will be on the first floor facing the central street, which is the sort of theme we were talking about at the last meeting. And then residential up above would be the plan. And keep in mind, this is a concept. This isn't designed. This is a showing how the perimeters and waiver framework that they have proposed can work. So both of these buildings on the, well, I'm calling the right hand side of that square more or less are not going to be one story. There'll be at least two stories, is that right? Yes, under the framework we submitted. All right, well, for myself, the rationale Andrew presents seems reasonable to me. And if we don't have to compel the second story, I would allow the developer to do it at once here. I would actually agree with you, Frank. Other members of the board? I'm okay with that, especially if we have the framework of what's being presented so that we don't end up with what, you know, Marla has expressed a concern about and which would be my concern as well. So I think, you know, just as long as we, this is sort of the framework and the guidance and direction that we will ultimately end up with, I'm okay with, you know, not requiring two stories across the board. Would it, would a good way to phrase it be to say buildings that front only on Kennedy or not on any of the streets could be less than two stories? I think we want to make sure that, I mean, Lisa, I want to make sure that neither of those two buildings that have just been identified as two story or more are suddenly get reduced to one story because then it does become more like Willis. So I think we should be quite specific about the buildings that we're allowing to be one story. So the concern obviously with that is we're not approving a plan. We're just approving, you know, like the language and the imagery. So I'm hearing what Marla is saying and I'm hearing what you're saying, Frank. And I think we need to craft some language for the condition for the approval that gets us what we're looking for and gets what the developers that are quite, I'll say it in quotes, promising because right now we're not, you know, there's no actual plan on the table. So I'm confused. This is a continued final plat application. How is it just concept? This is not proposed. This is, this portion of this 155 home development is only proposed for subdivision at this time. And at this time, because it's final plat, they are asking for waivers to allow them to build it the way they want to on a site by site basis. So at the final plat they have to ask for the waivers and then they can, if they get those waivers they can just develop this one parcel, one subdivided parcel at a time. Okay. And this is kind of how it's been presented right along. Okay. I think it might be helpful for you guys to solve this and I wanted to bring up that we, you know, when we, after we presented this at the last hearing, you guys were liking this concept. And so our intention is to amend the subdivision plat to align with this concept because right now it doesn't at all. It aligns with the old concept. And so once we do that, I think those two interior buildings will have like correlated lots, you know? So like there'll be two lots that correspond roughly with them. So I think if you just applied the one story height to those two lots that correlate with the approximate location of those buildings, that would be a pretty easy way to do it. And you could, you know, come up with anything else that you'd like, but at least that'll help, you know, to say on those lots you could have. Be good with that, Ford? Okay. I also wanted to tell you that that was coming so you didn't get the new plan with more lots and wonder what we were doing. But, you know, the intention is to align the subdivision with the concept so that we're not needing to, you know, so that it all kind of works in the future. Okay. So before we get to number two, there's the top of that page. There's a comment that's not in red that I just wanted to call out. And that's the first full paragraph. And it ends with staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide for connection of the existing home to the relocated utility line as a condition of approval. And then the next sentence, the telecom cabinet on lot 42 conflicts with the proposed driveway. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to relocate the cabinet outside the right of way as a condition of approval. I just wanted to call those out and make sure that we're all on board with those. Yeah, this is the farmhouse overhead power. So we're gonna have to put that underground for them. So that's fine. And the, I think we already moved to the utility cabinet over the past few days. Yeah. So that's all that's easy. Good. Thank you. Number two. We tried to minimize the tiny details that you guys had to think about. Number two is about the tree spacing plan and the request to go to 40 feet between trees. Board, are we good with this? So there's a plan in the packet that shows it. Is this it? You scroll over to where you can see where old farm road is, if there's five trees on the, I can tell you if it's the right one or not. So this is the 30-foot spacing. Yeah, so if you zoom out a bit, I've written in the corner. And then, so there's a couple sheets, one with 30-foot, 40-foot spacing and one with 30-foot spacing. So just like, thanks to each other. A little bit of background on this is just that we, originally at Preliminary Plat, our concept sketches showed 40 feet. The hillside neighborhood, the whole hillside neighborhood is 40 feet. I vaguely recall discussing this at Preliminary Plat with you guys and saying, you know, hillside, we thought looked nice. Is the tree spacing good? There was a condition in the Preliminary Plat permit that said they have to all be 30 feet. So everything we submitted for final plat moved them to 30 feet. But we did that knowing we had to because otherwise the final plat wouldn't be complete, but hoping that we could circle back to this to say, you know, our sort of, my recollection was that you guys were comfortable with replicating what we did at hillside because we all thought that came out pretty good. We submitted a packet with some photos of hillside that you guys don't have yet, but you're welcome to kind of look at or we could pull up now if it's helpful. You know, our landscape architects on the call, I think Carolyn would attest that, you know, we sort of feel like the 40 foot spacing works well and is desirable. 30 feet is really a lot of street trees. So, you know, I think the hope was that we could go back to that. I will also say all of the digital renderings you've seen of the neighborhood are with 40 foot spacing. So those do not show the closer spacing. We had those done before we realized we needed to adjust that. So those are all accurate. And so those are also included in the packet and you could look at a few. We're inclined. I'm quite happy with the spacing of trees in hillside. So if they're 40 feet, I'm good with that. Other thoughts? Is this a global question or some particular area? A global question. So this sheet is with a mixture of 30 and 40 foot spacing. And then if you go to the previous page, it's 30 foot spacing. So you can kind of like see that it's hard to see effectively, but I can see it right in the middle, like where the old farm road is. And then if you switch to the next page, kind of watch where like the homes have the detached garages. And then if you switch to the next page, you can kind of see the comparison. So that's the difference it makes. No one is making a shocked face. Can I ask a question? Does the 30 or 40 foot spacing have any bearing on curb cuts for driveways and driveway layout? They sort of all have to be accommodated. So, you know, it's 30 feet on average accommodating for curb cuts and driveways. And so some of them are closer than 40 feet even in the 40 foot layout, you know, because you get the driveways intersecting and things like that. So I don't know if that answers the question, but I think you sort of, yes, like there are some areas that are wider or not, but we're not like moving driveways to avoid street trees. We just shuffle the trees around and it averages. It's kind of how that it's been calculated. Okay, so it's an average of 30 feet or 40 feet. You know, it's not literally running a tape measure. No, that would be pretty much. Okay, I've got to, well, that was what I was sort of asking if there's any kind of issue like that. Okay. Is this a question of cost? Is that? Well, certainly, you know, I think it's a enormous cost to do that, to move them to 30 feet. I think it's close to $200,000, you know, the project. You know, it's not always about cost, but you know, we do feel like, you know, we'll get to it further in the comments. You know, we've exceeded the landscaping requirement by several hundred thousand dollars already, and that doesn't account for street trees because those aren't included in the landscaping budget. And so our perspective on it was that the street trees do well at 40 feet apart. And so it made sense to landscape the site, the way that made it look good in our architect's opinion. And so we didn't skimp on that because we thought that it would be better to look at carving the street trees back, you know, because that just didn't seem to have the same importance for the site. So that was kind of, you know, we're currently pretty far over budget. I don't know that that's sustainable. And so this seemed like the best way to sort of pair that back without sacrificing other parts of the site. Thank you. Are there any objections to the 40 foot distance between trees, the average 40 foot? No, I mean, I actually just, just out of curiosity, I went into Google Earth and I just measured my neighborhood, which I feel is pretty nicely street trees. And they're actually between 50 and 60 feet, you know, on center, so I'm comfortable with 40. Sometimes I worry that we're planting trees too close to buildings and too tight together that they don't have the opportunity to grow. So I'm comfortable with the 40 foot. Okay, anyone? Just one other question. Yeah, so sorry, slightly, it's a slightly different question. With that many trees, you're gonna be putting in a variety of street trees, right? Yeah, that was one of the comments, you know, Carolyn's on the call, she could speak to that. I believe we have. Yeah, I actually went through our plant lists and it looks like we have probably seven or eight different types of street trees, as well as three or four different types of columnar street trees, which we used in areas where things were a little tighter. So I think we have a pretty good variety. Pretty good mix. Thank you. Are we ready to move on? Number three, question is, do we need additional landscaping by the dog park parking lot? Yeah, this one was a little funny because the dog park, you can see in the little screenshot, a butt's an area not currently proposed for development, but parking lots are supposed to have landscaping around them. And so if they were to put in landscaping, it might not be very long lived. Yeah, I mean, we're happy to stick a tree in front of those two parking spots, if that on the plan of it works, I mean. Stick a tree. Put a tree, place a tree, sorry, plant. So, you know, if you guys want us to put a tree in front of those spots, like we can go ahead and add it. You know, we can sort it out down the road. But then it becomes this thing that we have to talk about when we go down the road. All right, so whatever you guys are comfortable with, you know, if you can just write it in or we can just let us know. It's a dog park, can't we be a little more? I would recommend, in this case, given the circumstances, the board exercises POD authority to waive the requirement from perimeter parking or perimeter planting around these three parking spaces. I'm all for that. I think it sounds great. That's otherwise we're gonna be talking about it again in two years. Yep. We all love doing that, though, so. That's good. Frank, Mark, and Dan. I'm good with that, I'm good with that. Is anyone not good with it? Okay, we're good with it. Great. We just saved you against your tree average, by the way. I appreciate it, yes. The dogs will be disappointed. They may have some trouble, actually. I think these dogs are gonna be pretty happy. That's a nice dog park. That's a happy dog, please. So there's no curbing, but need a solution to protect the landscaping and people who pedestrians. And this is by the barn. Okay. Why are you not proposing curbing? Yeah, we could. Also, I was just talking to Scott about it. I think we had talked about this a little bit, and we were, I guess if the curb is wave-able and the board were inclined to wave it, we would be appreciative of doing that. I think the intention of the parking area for the barn, if you wanted to zoom in on that landscaping plan, originally it was that it was gonna be all gravel. We've sort of revisited that because I thought the two-tone gravel thing was gonna be a maintenance nightmare. And so we talked with Scott about changing the sidewalk to be cement instead of like a second tone of gravel. So there would be basically a cement sidewalk now with a flush transition to a gravel parking lot to avoid that like red gravel mixing with gray or whatever when the snowplow hit it. It just seemed like a sort of problem. We wanted it to feel more like, I don't know the term, but like just more like relaxed, right? Than having a curb and a sidewalk and feeling that way. And so Scott says we can put a curb around it if we need to and so we can. But I guess that's, you guys wanna just throw that as a condition or talk about it now, or we could go either way, but we will make the sidewalk cement so that it's not this two-stone thing. Well, the staff comment mentions curb stops or bollards. Yeah, I don't know exactly what a curb stop is. Is that like one of the precast curbs like the sort of floating curbs? I think, you know, I don't know. I mean, the boards also approved like boulders instead of bollards. Boulders would be cool. Boulders, yeah, the curb stop sound tacky to me, but. Yeah, well, that's, yeah, I was just telling Scott because him and I talked about the curb stops and then I talked with Evan about it and Evan said that curb stop sounded tacky to him. So I think. Evan stole my words. Right. So I think, you know, and the bollards are sort of just a lot more complicated and just I think our preference would be either curb or no curb. So I think. I think boulders sound like a good idea. Kids would love it. I would be a little concerned about boulders though. How do you make the walkway go around them depending on what side they are? Would they go on the other side of the sidewalk with boulders? Like on the tree side of the sidewalk, is that? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Yeah. Yeah. Well, it would still protect the landscaping and just wouldn't protect the pedestrians, right? So we can roll with, we can go with curb. I mean, if it's, it's, you know, like I said, we can do it either way. So I think, you know, aesthetically, we liked it flush. We can put the curb in and the sidewalk. So. Okay. So I think you know what our thoughts are and. Okay. What are our thoughts? Yeah. Do you think we should? Well, that, well, my thoughts are no, no curb stops. It doesn't sound like boulders are going to work. So you're going to rethink this and maybe propose curbs. Unless anyone has any other suggestions. I mean, it sounds to me like the board is in favor of having something to protect the pedestrian way. And if that is boulders, in if you can find a way to make that work or something else creative. Great. Yeah. So we'll, we can come back. We'll look at that. If we can find a way to make boulders work, we will. If not, we'll propose the curb update the plans. Great. Thank you. Okay. A couple of pages over. Number five, I'm going to read this. Staff recommends the board discussed whether the proposed foundation plantings are necessary to create the type of development stipulated by the LDR and reviewed by the board and determine whether to allow the applicant waiver of the requirements to maintain foundation plantings, be they woody or non woody vegetation in perpetuity. I did not understand this. I'm sorry. Yeah. I was going to say, this is pretty convoluted. So the applicant and Marty has the plan up here has proposed these plantings all around the buildings. And if you're a homeowner, you're going to move in and you're going to make great plantings. And then five years are going to be like, you know what? I freaking hate rhododendrons. I'm going to take out the rhododendrons and I'm going to put in a lilac. And as a PUD, you have to maintain the landscaping and perpetuity. So you can't do that. So what they're asking is to allow homeowners to change the landscaping around their foundations. The board at preliminary plot said, nope, sorry, it's PUD. Now that we have the landscape budget, staff is saying, well, maybe you can, as long as you don't take credit for the foundation plantings. If you don't consider the foundation plantings to be part of your required minimum landscaping budget and go back a couple sheets, the board considers that these foundation plantings are not actually important to make the project a good project, nope, too many. If, you know, because this plan doesn't show the foundation plantings, right? This looks good from a landscaping perspective without any foundation plantings at all. And we trust that homeowners are inclined to put some shrubs around their homes. Then maybe we say, okay, you don't, we don't count them towards the minimum budget and you don't have to maintain them forever. If you want to put them in, you can put them in. If you don't want to put them in and the homes are sold with no foundation plantings, that's fine. So that's where we are. I don't know where you are, Andrew, with that idea. Well, so I think it was all accurate, but we're definitely going to put in the plantings. So I think, I think, you know, we're fine with, like we're not trying to get out of putting the plantings around the homes. All the homes will get plantings around the homes per the plan as designed. And so I think the issue is like, if we have hostas in there and somebody wants to plant hydrangeas, I mean, everybody goes to gardener supply in spring and buys one of those ever bloom hydrangeas and sticks it in their yard. I feel like it's just like a random passage in Vermont. So like somebody's going to do that. And if they dig up a hosta in year two and then I have to come in in year three with the city inspector and rip the hydrangea out and put a hosta back to get the bonding that I had to bond for the plants around the foundation back. Like it just creates a huge mess. And so we're just trying to avoid that. And that's kind of the, and we didn't count any of the landscape plantings in the budget. We're still over budget by a couple hundred thousand dollars without counting that. If you add those in, we're over budget by, you know, $200,000 more. So... Frank? Can we just say developer and their, and their successors are authorized to vary foundation plantings as they see fit? Yeah. So what that has to mean is that that the board can't rely on those foundation plantings as shown on the plant. And the applicant is free to do whatever the heck they want for foundation plantings. And why is our judgment better than the judgment of the homeowner? I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying you have to be okay with that. That's the repercussions. Well, that's what I'm saying. I'm okay with that. I'm okay with that. Because they're going to do it anyway. And it's an enforcement nightmare for something that we don't need to enforce because they've already met their landscape minimum. That was my thought. And I would think that it would be horrible to not do foundation plantings. And there's an incentive for O'Brien brothers to make these homes attractive so they can sell them. Yeah. That's not on the table, not doing foundation plantings. It's not going to happen. So whatever the permit says, there will be foundation plantings around the homes. So are we going on this? Yeah. They just need permission to vary them. That's all that can be done with one sentence. Okay. Comment number six. I'm going to read this. Staff instead recommends the board provide a waiver within the residential area of the front setback requirement to 10 feet with open porches or decks less than 12 feet in depth allowed to encroach into the front setback of up to five feet. Staff recommends a waiver within the residential area of side and rear setback to five feet. Staff also recommends the board include a condition that for street facing garages, there'd be enough room between the face of the garage and the sidewalk to park a full size car without overhanging the sidewalk or that there be clearly not enough room, i.e. a car would be in the street. So this is really recommendation for the board to provide a waiver. That's that last part bothers me. What last part? Staff also. Or that there be clearly, or that there be clearly not enough room i.e. a car would be in the street. We don't want that. So the concept is that the garage is so close to the street that you have to park inside and you basically have a little stubby driveway but no room for a car. Or you have room for a car, but not that you have room for half a car. Right, right. It's either, it's an either or but how do you, what's that's a judgment call? And if you were Frank's going and that's a judgment call that there's clearly not enough room for a car, you know, you've got your smart for two cars that are, you know, however big. And so you can say, well, I can park that there. And then the next person moves in and they've got a Ford F-150 and it's hanging out into the street. Well, you know, how do we... In fact, there is engineering about this and a standard parking space has actual dimensions. Yeah, okay. Could that just be public streets because all our every unit has a part, has plenty of driveway length on all the public streets. It's just some of the alleys where we have the little stubby ones where we're accessing the garages. Or you could be like one of my neighbors and you could park on the sidewalk the long way. Well, those areas with alleys aren't even setbacks because the alleys are on the lot, right? Correct. So it wouldn't necessarily conflict with this. You know, I think you could change that last sentence to say 20 feet. Is it 20 feet that we provide between the garage and the sidewalk? It's 20 minimum, but we don't do less than 22. We don't have any less than 22. So I think... I think we just change to say minimum of 20 feet on public street between the edge of the sidewalk and the face of the garage. Or rec path or road or whatever the nearest, you know. Whatever the nearest public walking services. Can we live with that board? Yeah. The only comment that we had on this was just, you know, maybe there could be a carve out added for Old Farm Road for the townhomes facing on Old Farm Road. I'm not sure. I think that those are all pretty much five foot setbacks to the building or to the porch. I'm not really sure, but those have two fronts. It's just unclear, like if the five foot back setback applies on Old Farm Road or if it applies on the Meadow Loop Road. So it just, I think that was the only potential snafu we saw there. So Old Farm Road, we did look at that. And Old Farm Road, the homes as you have them shown are setback at least 10 feet. And then that's why we had that suggestion about porches can protrude. Up to five. Up to five. Did we look at that? I think we had a little bit of a concern that the units that we show all comply, but there might be a scenario where a different style of unit might be a little closer. Well, the LDRs, correct me if I'm wrong, limit setback waivers to 10 feet, right? 10 foot front, five foot sides. I think it's five feet. I think it's five foot side and rear, 10 foot fronts. So I guess that was our question is, does all those homes have two front yards or can we define the Leo Lane as the front? No, they have two fronts. Two fronts. I'm pretty sure that the waiver standard of the beauty we're in is five feet. No less than five feet is the section. So, but. I am checking now. We can. It's in that section that says like the board can't waive these four things. Oh yeah. Nope, it is five from any. I thought it was 10 from front, five from side and rear. There's about seven different regulations floating around currently. So it's like. So are we okay with this? Also, no. I think that they're asking for front setbacks of five feet on old farm road. Can you zoom in to old farm road portion to show the board what that would mean? We should talk through that a little bit. What did you just say the regulations say? The regulations allow the board to waive down to five feet. Okay. But that doesn't mean you ought to. Right. Yeah, zoom in even more. I think the concern to Scott's point is like, so we've shown a dupe, a triplex cluster that is, it has a, it's a two. This is so complicated. So the triplexes we show are like three different units. You've got unit one, unit two in the middle, unit three on the right. But there's a chance that when we're selling the units that somebody might want a building that's like unit two, unit one, unit two. And so you'd end up putting the three puzzle pieces together differently and that could, you know, move the building of foot from what's shown on the site plan. So like, if you look at the footprint lots for these buildings on the plat, they correlate to the biggest units, right? So like the footprint lot can fit any configuration of the three approved units. But for the site plan, we just had to like pick units to show because we need to show footprint and how it all works. And so that was, so if you think about like, you know, see how one unit's porch is like sticking out a little further than the other one. So if you like flip that to the other side, is it a little bit closer than 10 feet? You know, I don't know, but they sort of all will be within that box. And that was the only area of sort of concern on our part with that proposed condition. So if you guys can find a way to address that, I think we're perfectly comfortable just letting you look at that and work it out or we can propose something. So I'm a little lost. What do we need to do? So what I need from you guys is to decide how close you will allow the homes to be to the right of way. And whether that is 10 feet away or 10 feet away with the porch allowed to be five feet closer than that. So 10 feet for the building and five feet for the porch or five feet for everything. That's what I need. Ford, what are your thoughts? Well, sorry, I just wanted clarification from the applicant. It sounded like the 10 feet would work except in this particular area. I think it's only the one building there with the 20-4, 20-5, 20-6 and maybe the one on the far right, Scott, 20-26. There's a couple where it was closed. So if we could just get five feet on just those units, I think everyone would be happy and we'd have no concerns about it. Could we write it that way, Marla? Yeah. But I kind of, I'm gonna put on my Paul hat for a minute. It begs the question, if it's okay there, then why isn't it just okay? I mean, are we gonna have homes that are five feet from the right of way in one tiny portion of this 155-home development, right? Is it gonna look weird? Well, what we're talking about is really just like corners. So it's, you know, the way you wrote the proposed condition was, you know, would work for 90% of it. And I think having like a corner of one type of unit out as far as the porches on all the other units, I don't think would look funny. I think it would look similar. Well, so if that's, I don't know how to phrase this well, but I mean, should we just say, say, forget it with the porch thing and say five foot setbacks, no additional allowance for porches. I like the 10 and five. Okay. And that's actually what's been in place for the SEQ for a number of years. As to the corner building, you can just be very explicit except for Bing, Bing and Bing, which are allowed to be, which are allowed to have a five foot setback. And we could get you those. Yeah, we'll get you that list then. That's perfect. Is that okay with floor members? Yeah, I'm in agreement. Well, I still want to, I mean, how are you, like if somebody does move in with an F-150 right there, how are they going to park the thing? If you've only got like a five. We aren't talking about adjusting the parking, only the building setbacks. So the parking is on the other side of this particular unit. So like where, if you move, can you put the mouse on the parking space? So right there. So that driveway is 20 feet from the pavement to the home. Okay. And this is like the front side where there's no driveway. So the homes across the street are single family units? Yes. Okay, got it. Are we okay then with this? Okay, any objection? Perfect, let's move it along. So I had, this is a not read thing in between here. That's just at the top of, so it's this one about porches. I just wanted to point this out before we skipped over it. So the last sentence of this, if you go to the top of the next page, I think is what we've been saying. You know, I think we're sort of all aligned with staff is kind of seeing what we're saying. So the last sentence of that top paragraph, this would not necessarily require PUD amendment, but may. So we are looking for you guys to, in this PUD permit, just say emphatically, if you have a deck on your house that you buy at this neighborhood, you can turn that into a sunroom with a zoning permit. You don't need to come before the DRB for an amendment to do that. And that, so we just want to clarify, if it's may, if it's not may, and they can already, we don't need it, but. I think Marla has a comment. The situation in which it would not be allowed is when that porch has been built within that five foot allowance that we just talked about. Okay, that makes sense. Okay, well, that would be fine. And then during the building process, if we're selling the house and somebody wants to convert the deck to a sunroom, that's something we can still do and we can assess that condition along the way and the zoning administrator can issue that permit. Well, no, so if you, if somebody in unit 20-1 wants to build a porch that protrudes five feet into the front setback and then they want to enclose it, then it's not a porch anymore. Right. And so they would require a PUD amendment to do so. Yeah, and we don't, I mean, we, I think that's fine. I mean, I think there's a distinction between a porch and a deck. You know, decks are typically not on a street side. So like we don't offer enclosed porches anyway, but like on that unit 16-1, it's like that little thing sticking off the back right there is a deck. And so like it's just been at hillside, like people, we had a waiver that said the zoning minister can approve this. And so all along the way, folks have added a sunroom or screened it in or added a covered deck. They do all kinds of things to that deck and the zoning permit that issues is the approval for that, right? So like we file a plan and shows it on the elevation and the zoning is good to go. So we just want to make sure that we can still do that in this phase because people really like it. And so that was the only request. So I just, just point of consideration if you guys can talk about that when you deliver it. You look puzzled. I just don't see how it needs to change. I don't. It might not need to. So I, we just wanted to make sure the last sentence just worried me. And if what you're saying is that if it's only, if it's coming into the setback and I'm not worried about it. Okay. All right. I'm sorry, you seem okay with it. But if I were you, I'd be like, I don't know what the heck this means. So I'd want clarity because I'm sitting here going, I like clarity. And what you pointed out is there's a difference between a porch and a deck. Right. And what we just talked about was, you know, so for the porch, if it's within the five foot setback, you cannot do this without the, so I would want that clarity in there. That's, and I get that. That's totally fine. I agree. I'd love it to be clear. If you're saying it clearly now, that's good enough. I think for me that, you know, we can during this sale process, if folks want to add something to the deck, as long as that's not triggering a build in the five foot setback that's only for porches, like I get that. I'm good with that. I work good with that. And I think we could add into the decision exactly what Marla said that this may, and then the situation in which an amendment would be required would be XYZ. That'd be great. Good. All right, let's move on to number seven. Staff recommends the board discuss and provide DPW an opportunity to consider and provide feedback on any proposal. Have they done so? Yeah, which one are we on? Number seven. Seven. Get in there. Right, so opportunities to consider and provide feedback on any proposal. We don't yet have a proposal. So this is for the applicant to tell us what they want to do here. And then DPW needs to review what the applicant is proposing. Okay. Yeah, so we had forwarded an email from our traffic consultant, Roger. He wasn't able to come tonight. He looked at these two questions, seven and eight. I can try and paraphrase what he said. I think, you know, one thing that I definitely want to point out is that the turn lane on Kimmel Avenue is not making the road wider, right? So it's only, it's only a striping. This is a striping issue, right? So we're gonna take the stripe off the middle and there's enough width to add a turn lane and then leave two lanes of traffic. And so the question is at the point that we tie O'Brien Old Farm Road into Kimmel Avenue, our proposal is at that point in time we're gonna put the turn lane on Kimmel Avenue so that anybody coming into our project turning off of Kimmel making a left has an independent turn lane so they don't get rear-ended on Kimmel Avenue. And that was the proposal. So the suggestion is that we not put the turn lane in until a later time when it might be warranted by a more queuing on Kimmel Avenue to turn left. And our perspective was that, you know, it really, we wanted to just get it in early. I think if you have people trying to turn left at that intersection, you know, and you have enough width on the road already anyway, you're just gonna end up in a situation where you've got people like going right around someone with their blinker on, like not in a turn lane and talking through with Roger. I mean, that was his concern was, you know, why not have it be separate and dedicated? So we can speak with public works about it. Roger's position is that his position is the turn lane should go in immediately and that it's a safety concern to not have it with rear-end collisions if you're turning left on a busy thoroughfare. Staff or BFJ might have a different position as the applicant wearing bill. So we'll do the turn lane as directed and we're good with it. So, but, you know, our preference is to go with our consultant's opinion, but we'll delay it if need be. So I think it's really a question for you guys for public works and for BFJ to sort of clarify what they want us to do. Haven't we heard in the past that turning lanes create more problems than they solve? Yeah, and I'm the wrong kind of engineer to know what the right answer is here. But I'm kind of coming from where you're coming from, which is based on what we've been hearing on other projects. And that's on my personal opinion. It's just what we've heard in other projects. Speaking as a motorist, I just don't believe that. Okay, other thoughts? To be clear, we're proposing to make a larger investment upfront for the city to add the turn lane. I mean, it's striping. Right, but we're gonna have to mill part of the road and re-stripe it and, you know, put new pavement down to, you know, with whatever. So, you know, I just, we're not looking to, our position here is not advantageous. It's just the position that we're told is the correct one by our consultants. What do you- And before I would oppose that, I need somebody to explain what's wrong with that other than a vague suggestion that they create more problems than they solve. What problems do they create? And what more specifically, what problems would they create? What do they create here? Right. I don't get it, right. Other comments? So, board? My definition, tomorrow's point is I am not an engineer at all, that I would defer to DPW and the consultant to work this out, if that's a path, because I am also, it seems, I would expect that it's situation by situation when the turn lane makes sense and so that to be worked out between the city and the applicant's traffic consultant. Yeah, I feel the same as Quinn. I mean, I'm not an engineer, I'm an architect. I typically defer to my consultants and it does seem to be a case by case kind of condition, whether it's beneficial or not beneficial. I don't think the blanket statement, they're good, they're bad. And, you know, I think we need a little more information and I think we need, you know, this to be worked out between DPW and the applicant. Okay, good. So we'll hear from you again. Sure, we'll get that ironed out. Good. So, number eight, Lane, I think we just covered that. No, this is different. This is the other end. The other end, okay. So the question is, are you still planning to modify the intersection at Old Farm Road in Hinesburg? Yep, so I don't have Roger's email perfectly memorized here from earlier, but I believe that that improvement suggestion was included in the original traffic study prior to the modifications that were made for the sort of accounting for the reduced amount of trip ends, you know, originally when we came in and we went through this at our first hearing back in July, you know, we had proposed a full build out of the project you know, I forget what it is, 1800 PM peak hour trips or something along those lines, making Kimball Avenue five lanes or six lanes at the intersection with Kennedy Drive and sort of a lot of major infrastructure. And then we were told to pair that back. We reduced the amount of trip ends that we were looking for. We reduced the lane widening at Kimball Avenue. We sort of brought in the Tilly Drive studies focus on the Potash Road connector, the Tilly Drive connection. And in doing that, we removed widening Kimball. We also removed adding this turn lane because it, you know, we were focusing on different areas and pedestrian means and all of these other things. So I think, you know, it got pulled out at that point back in March or, you know, might have been even at preliminary plat that it was removed and this had better sense. So you're not planning to modify that intersection? No. Okay. So what we had shown before was to have on Old Farm Road westbound when you get to Kennedy, when you get to Heinzberg, I'm sorry, there'd be a left and a right for the Old Farm Road. So none of that then. And that's not part of the project. And you're saying that's not warranted. Exactly. Okay. Isn't there kind of a left and a right now? There's enough room for it probably. It's a big kind of area. But it's not very specific. Right. Yeah, okay. It's an informal road. You have people just pull up and do it. Yeah, okay. All right, let's move on to number 10 or number nine. We need numerical information about the wetland and the buffers. We sent it in today. Okay. You got it. Good. That was an easy one. Number 10, we need to know what the meaning of the dotted line and the shaded area is. So Caroline can confirm this, but I believe that's just a mowed line. So there's the path. That's correct. A wetline? Where you would mow the grass. Oh, mow, okay. Can you talk about that, Caroline? Yeah. So the hatch just indicates the paved surface or the stone surface. And then the dashed line shows the limits of mowing on either side of the path. And the highlighted, the yellow? That's just my highlighting. Oh, that's yours, okay. So, sorry, Caroline, can you say again, the shaded is? It's the stone surface of the path. Got it. It's just showing the actual path. And then the dashed line is the mow line on either side. I think the idea there was just to make sure we're not mowing 30 feet on each side of it, right? We wanted to have kind of a narrow. Right. Okay, we good to know. The yellow was grass, in other words, right? Right, mowed grass. Yeah, yes. Okay. At the top of the next page, there's again, a non-red statement that says staff recommends the board require the applicant to demonstrate the dog parking area is curbed. So this is similar to the barn parking lot that we discussed earlier. Okay, yeah, so we'll add the curb to the... Except in this case, the sidewalk's a real, it's a sidewalk with concrete at this time, so. Yeah, we'll add the curb there. And there was a hole in the sheets. So we needed to add a whole new sheet to cover that area. Yeah, that was my fault. I had a gap in my plans. So we did that. And speaking of non-red comments, sorry, I missed one of my notes on page 16. So just back, just above where we just were. The curb cut condition. So I just want to clarify that bullet there. There shall be maximum one curb cut on each side of Old Farm between Kimball and O'Brien Farm Road. So the new conceptual plan for the IC, or C1LR lots that we submit has two curb cuts on the east side of Old Farm Road. So we just want to modify that to account for that. Okay. Go ahead. Did someone have a question? I was looking to Marla for guidance on that. Yeah, if the board is happy with what they've seen from C1LR, then we should write the conditions to permit what they have shown us. Are we good with that? Okay, number 11. If it is necessary and acceptable, require them to be properly identified on the civil and landscape plans. See below screenshot. This is... You guys are really good at finding hairs in the plants. The meaning of these lines. Those lines are gone. They're what? They're gone, we got rid of them. Okay. There's a lot of sheets. And I was very stressed about missing something. So I just went through every sheet and looked for weird stuff. Well done. Touche. Okay. Number 12. This is a little complicated in my mind, but it's really about a commitment to a specified bedroom mix. Can we, before we jump to the inclusionary, I had more black comments. Sure. I'm sorry to jump in there. On the sort of top of page 18, the section about the commercial roads. I guess like to the point of earlier, where it's just being uneasy about the lack of clarity. So this right away was requested. So if you go back to the overall plan, I can show you where it is and just sort of explain just what we want to not have happen. And then we can do whatever you guys think is best. So if you scroll down to the IC, lots there, that right away, in between, I'm gonna go sort of blind here, but lot 42 and 41. So you see that right away, 60 foot right away. So we added that to the plan because it was a condition of the preliminary plat. Previously, I think we just had an access easement there for lot 46 and 45. The bold text here says the DRB may at its discretion approve a roadway to be private if the proposed roadway functions as a private service access road within a commercial subdivision. We're really hoping that that 60 foot right away can stay a private road because this is a commercial subdivision and we're just concerned about the parking rules for that development. So like if we can't, how those lots wanna be developed, lot 45 and 46 is probably with the building on the downside of the page and the parking on the top. And all of the lots 42, 43, 41 have the building up against the city street with the parking in the back. So you've got like kind of this consolidated parking area in the middle shielded from view from Potash Road in entirety shielded from Kimball Avenue and that's sort of the whole design. And so if we interject a public road where that 60 foot right away is, now all of a sudden I've got parking all around a public road. You're slightly overthinking it. Which would create an issue. So the LDR, 1512D2 says specifically, commercial roads must be built to public roadway standards and be dedicated to the city as a public roadway. We don't want this road. You don't want us to take this road. You don't want it to be a public road because then you can have parking on it. We've done this on a number of projects where we meet 1512D2 by dedicating a public right of way. And then we include a condition that says as allowed under 1512D3A, this roadway is intended to remain private. That'd be great. Yeah, perfect. So we just did it for beta a few months ago. We said it has to be a public road standards. It has to be dedicated, but we're never gonna take it. And we made sure that that was in the decision. Okay, perfect. And then I'm sorry to bring this up, but I feel that I need to the height section on the next page. So on page 19, we would really appreciate a finding in the permit regarding height. I sat through the hearing a couple of weeks ago where you had an approved final plat with an approved set of plans from final plat being appealed because the height didn't necessarily meet the requirements of the district. And so I think that saying that height, that the plans appear to meet the height requirement, we just would really like you to say, you have the plans and the plans are approved to be built on the lots where the plans are assigned to be built as shown on the plans. Like that the height is approved, right? So we don't have to explain to the zoning administrator what the height is for every lot that we develop and potentially be appealed because it's one foot over or six inches over or whatever it is. If there a way that we could accommodate that, we would really appreciate to just, and we can give you whatever you need. I can send in a set of plans that has the height labeled on every elevation. So you can see how we're calculating it. I think the problem is that there's a surfeit of information on this project. And for us to review the matrix that you've produced that shows all 30 whatever home types and all 155 lots and can make sure that none of those combinations of things exceed the allowed height is just too heavy a lift for a final plat stage of review. And it should, it's more appropriately what happened at the zoning permit level. I think I would be worried about being off by a foot or two and having a plan that can't be built in an approved final plat. So I- Well, if you're confident that none of your proposed homes exceed the allowable height in the lots that you're allowing them to be on. Why do you need it in that decision? I'm not confident because it goes to like, well, what's the pre-construction grade and what's the existing grade and how tall is the house? And so you're asking us to do that math for you at this time? Well, I'm just asking to just bring a little common sense to it that we're proposing two story houses, no more than that across the site on the lots is a residential neighborhood with two story homes proposed to be built. And so my take on it is if all the architecture looks good and you've reviewed all the architecture, then they should be able to be built on the lots that they're programmed to be built on without having to sort of after being through four years of permitting potentially wind up with a plan that can't be built when I get to the finish line or when we get to the 140th lot because we haven't been able to analyze the pre-construction grade. It just, I don't want to over complicate things either but you have the architecture, we know the feel of the neighborhood. And I think it makes sense to just let the homes be built where they're meant to be as a condition. I don't, I don't, well, the problem is so you understand Andrew, at least understand my problem is that we are in the throes of discussing the problem of calculating height as a policy matter generally. And I don't see how we can give you a blanket dispensation from wherever we wind up. Well, on the previous project, I provided a lot by lot analysis of grade and height for approval, I'm happy to do it again. I just don't, I'm almost 100% sure that we will run into a problem on one lot in this neighborhood. I don't know why, I mean, the site is a hillside, right? So it's up and down, up and down all over the place. And when you're looking at pre-construction grades being so varied and then you're looking at big fills, big cuts, putting in roads in areas and bringing the grade up, you know, eight, eight feet, I mean, 10 feet. Right. And then how does that correlate to pre-existing grade and where is all that information? It's just, it seems risky to get to the finish line and not have some of security that the plans proposed can be approved. But I don't think we can provide that at this stage. And I'm opposed to the request. Marlon, do you have thoughts about how we could address this? Honestly, I think that it's, like I said, the problem here is a surfative information. I can't analyze all the different homes on all 151 lots in the R1PRD at this time. I mean, we could, but then you'd be closing your hearing in December. Could we provide a lot-by-lot analysis that just said, you know, maybe we need a waiver on lot 16-4 to go to, you know, 29 feet. Maybe we need a waiver on 16-16 to go to 31 feet, you know, just based on our own analysis of all the lot pre-construction grades and the, you know, the walkout versus full height versus whatever basement story. So that, you know, would that be sort of something that you guys could do or entertain? I mean, because at this point in the process, we can get a height waiver. And so this is the point to sort of solidify that. So we can do all the work and say, you know, we need to a foot here on this lot and we need a foot here on that lot. It's a lot of work on your part, but would that work, board? And Marla, would that work? Yeah, I think that makes sense if it's doable. Okay. And that there. Yeah, I don't think we want to run into any surprises in either of the afternoon. No. Something Andrew said is that now we can provide height at this point in the process, we can provide height waivers, but in later parts we may not be able to. Is that correct? At the point that I was going for a zoning permit, I wouldn't be able to get a height waiver and have to come back to the DRB for an amendment. Yeah. Does that make sense to you? Yeah. Just thinking through the other problems and where we are. So are we good with asking the applicant to come back with that data? Yeah. Okay. We'll get you a lot by a lot. Yeah. So I think we were talking about number, I think it's seven, 12? 12, sorry. The commitment to a specified bedroom mix. And I feel like I'm holding on to this with my pinkies. I didn't really have a great understanding of this. It seemed complicated, but I'm sure it's, it is complicated. And Andrew, do you wanna weigh in on your response to this? Sure. I spent a lot of time since we got this trying to sort this out. I actually had a really good conversation with someone at VHFA today that sort of helped to clarify some stuff for me. I think 12 and 13 go hand in hand. The two comments, I think they sort of, we can talk about them together. I was not aware of the provision in the zoning regulations that's outlined at comment 13. Essentially, I think I have a, I think the solution here is that because the regulation is allowing an unfinished space that can be converted to a bedroom, it's saying that that counts as a bedroom in the regulations. And so any home I build, if it's three bedrooms with a basement that has an egress window that can be converted to a bedroom, that that's technically a four bedroom under the rules. All of the units I'm proposing have an egress window in the basement. So if it wasn't shown on the plans, we'll add it to the plans, but every home that goes in with a full basement will have an egress window in the basement. And so I think it's the case that we can, the going back then to comment 12 are concerned with saying how many three bedroom and how many four bedroom affordable homes will provide is that you have to qualify the buyers and the number of bedrooms goes to the income of the person who's buying it, right? So, and it goes to the price of the home. So a four bedroom is $340,000 or something is the limit under the rule and a three bedroom is whatever it is, 310 or eight. And the income of the people who are buying that is regulated by household size. And so if you have a bunch of folks who are two income households who have a $90,000 income limit can't afford the $344,000 four bedroom, but they could afford a three bedroom. And I've committed to doing four bedrooms with you guys, then I'm losing that buyer and whether there's an enormous market of folks who want these, I don't know. And so we just wanna be able to be exposed to the broadest market possible, right? So that's the tension for us in saying we're definitely gonna build six four bedrooms because if we have 10 people lined up for three bedrooms who meet all the income qualifications and we have zero people lined up for four bedrooms and we can't now offer threes, we're sort of in a bind. And so that's the problem we're trying to solve for. And I think that that bedroom basement solves it because those units are four bedrooms under the rules, but I don't have any cost into the fourth bedroom. And so I could sell it as a three bedroom if the right person who qualified were there. And so maybe that's fixing this, I don't know, but that's kind of, I think that's a good tool to use so that we don't necessarily have the added cost of building the fourth bedroom, but it technically is a four bedroom. And so then all the units we're selling from an LDR perspective are all four bedroom units. And so that would sort of, and then I can internally I have no cost into the fourth bedroom so I could sell it for the three bedroom price to those buyers. I have both markets available and I think it sort of works. Frank, did I hear you start to say something? Yeah, I'm inclined to go along with Andrew because I'm really concerned about the probability of finding much in the fourth bedroom market. In other words, for us to be rigid about the number of bedrooms strikes me as maybe not practical and too hampering to actually serve the market that needs affordable housing. How many four bedroom type families are out there at this point? I think the trend is in the other direction, no? So I have a question and like Dawn, I'm barely hanging onto understanding of this, but could you, I actually have two questions. My first one is could you define bedrooms differently for the DRB decision and for financing purposes? Well, I think so because the unfinished basement, I don't think would count as a bedroom under financing for people buying a home. Okay, so that's my first question. It sounds like there may be a path forward. My second question is a broader question. What is the board's interest in having this hashed out now? What questions do you have and how much do you want us to just get this sorted out before we see them again? You mean between you? How much, what are the things do you want to know about the inclusionary units before you send us to do some homework? So my question is what happens if they sell them all as three bedroom units or houses, right? Not the inclusionary, but the market value homes. And then three years later someone sells their home, the new homeowner wants to put in a fourth bedroom. Does that change anything? The market rate unit, you mean? Yeah, like does that change anything down the road? Because technically all of these homes could be sold as three bedroom units and then all of the incoming homeowners in the next 15, 20 years all want four bedrooms and they can outfit it. Does that change anything or does that not matter? Why do that or so what? But I think that's her question. That's my question. Does it make a difference in the calculation for inclusionary? If someone in the future or a certain number of homes in the future end up outfitting it so these are all four bedroom homes, market rate. I think so. I think that you can put an addition, whether it be finishing your basement or building a new bedroom on the back. Once it's sold. Yeah, I think you're just regulated on your resale value. I don't think, you know, cause you can only, you can't make a profit. I don't think what happens to the market rate units in the future changes what they need to do to the inclusionary units in the future. I think if they're for sale units, it's only a time of sale, first sale. First sale. For market rate and then the inclusionary have to be deeded to be perpetually affordable. But if someone wanted to build an addition on their affordable unit, then it would, they could still do that or they could not build an addition and same with the market rate, I think. What else do we want to know before we send us home with some homework? I'll write that question down, Stephanie. And I don't know what to tell you about the demand for four bedrooms. I know from my being on the board at Habitat and working closely with CHT, there are a number of people, very low income people looking for four bedroom units, but it might not be your target population. Well, I think, like I said, I mean, I think our intention here is to offer both and to sell what comes in for the price that's allowed. So four bedroom is the 340 and a three bedroom is the 308 and we wanna just offer and sell what's allowed and sort of work through that as we go. So I think if you guys were saying that makes sense and there's some nuance here that I think sort of helps, maybe we can get everything in line. So are we good with having them develop some plan for this and coming back to us? Frank? Yes, I'm surprised actually by what you said. I stand corrected. You're closer to the ground I am on the issue and I didn't realize there was much four bedroom demand. Well, again, it's among a very low income population who might not be potential buyers. They might not even. That meet the 80% income. But they might not be able to afford. And they can afford a habitat home because it's sold at cost, but they can't afford what you're building. So, okay, are we ready to move? Do we have what we need? Are we ready to move on to number 14? Okay, noise from blasting. Man, we're hitting all the fun topics. Yeah, so thanks for that. So I had like a probably an hour and a half conversation with the engineer who did the noise study today about noise and it is gotta be, I mean, I felt like I was adding like a physics class or something. And so I'm gonna do my best to try and explain this, but the reason that we don't talk about the noise from the blasting itself. So we provided a memo along noise analysis from RSG that looked at the impact of the noise of the drill for the rock and the impact of the noise of the crushing of the rock from the Boropa area that we're talking about here. And those impacts because of the sort of distance to everything were below ambient levels. So, you know, folks living on old farm road in terms of the impacts of the, specifically to the area of the borough pit, which this is looking at, you know, there is blasting associated with some of the utilities and home foundations closer to folks that give a different, you know, that it's not being analyzed because that's not covered by the LDRs. This particular portion of it is. And so we looked at the noise from the drill and we looked at the noise from the crusher and it was below ambient levels, you know, at adjacent properties. And the reason that they didn't look at noise from the physical blast itself is that my sort of rudimentary understanding of it is that the noise of a blast is not the thing that anybody cares about, right? So like you have a blast and it's the vibration of the blast and it's the air overpressure of the blast that is the effect that you feel. And the noise is like, there is a noise, but no one's talking about the noise, like because that's not the impact that's sort of there, if that makes sense. And so from a vibration perspective and from an air overpressure perspective, we did look at those impacts which are the sort of more significant impacts of blasting and those were all, you know, are talked about in the report and are well below sort of industry standards at adjacent properties. We didn't look at noise. Our sound engineer actually looked through six or eight reports that she'd done for quarries around the area and was unable to find any reports that looked at noise. They all just said the same thing that, you know, overpressure and vibration are the impacts of blasting. And so we didn't really have any ready available way of communicating it. And so I guess that's the answer, which is if you guys are comfortable, you know, no, we didn't specifically look at noise of blasting, but my understanding is it's sort of like, you know, if you got in a car accident and broke your arm, but also like scraped your hand, like the noise is the scrape on your hand and the other things are your broken arm and you're not really looking at your hand. Kind of, if that makes any sense. So it seems like the broader question is the impact of blasting. And I have a question about, and this is self-serving on my part, but the ledge that many, probably a dozen homes on old farm road back up to, will that, which is a little bit fragile. I mean, there's pieces that fall off every spring. Will that ledge be impacted by the vibration? So we've looked, you know, we looked at vibration. We provided the blast report. We also have a third-party analysis. We had engaged a third-party engineer to double-check the blast report to make sure that we're not blasting experts, you know, so we hired this person to sort of be, you know, thorn in the side owner's rep of the blaster. We really beat up the blaster on the proposal. The blast plan significantly more fine-tuned than it was when we started that process. And what we've done for vibration is we've cut the industry's safe standard in half. So at the nearest structure, our blast designs are 50% of the understood standard for blasting. And so, you know, we feel like that's about as responsible of a path as we could take, you know, certainly people are gonna notice the blasting, but it's, you know, we're trying to balance moving the project forward with the impacts of the project. And so, you know, we thought having the standard made sense, and that's how we chose to proceed with that. So I think, you know, with that in mind, I doubt that there would be damage to, you know, land formations outside of the blast zone. And I certainly, if it's not gonna harm a foundation, I wouldn't think it would harm the bedrock, you know, around it. Okay. John. The word there is continuous noise levels and I know what you just said about noise, but how do you define continuous, like eight hours a day for five years, or what are we talking about? Because this is a problem with another construction site right now, and there's a lot of back and forth between the community and the developers. So our sound report gets into the weeds on noise. And, you know, to the point where we sort of, we've analyzed that from the perspective and this is sort of getting outside of the quarry area, the borrow pit. So like we've only addressed the borrow pit in our application to the city because that was the sort of part that's regulated. We have looked at the entire site from a noise and blasting and ledge removal perspective for Act 250 because they regulate the whole thing. And we have a sound analysis that looks at site-wide the impacts. I believe that in that analysis, we found, you know, it was in the realm of maybe 10 days at most that residences experienced sound beyond 55 decibels, which is the sort of accepted level for operations of a rock quarry, operational level. So that's the 55 decibels of standard, if this is gonna be in your backyard for the rest of your life. And what we found looking site-wide, and we can submit that, you know, full noise analysis if you guys want that for the record, you know, that looks at every lot, every neighbor, where the drill is going to move around the entire site, the duration and estimated, you know, drill pattern, how that thing moves, and then what the daily impacts above the 55 decibel level are on each proximate residence. I mean, there's a graph and everything in there. I mean, we've looked at the whole thing. I don't know if I'm remembering it 100% accurate, but I believe it was 10 days at most above the ambient noise levels of the area. So we also put monitors all around the site. We've figured out exactly what the ongoing noise level is in the area, and it's like 55 to 73 decibels or something because of the highway and the trucks and the airport and everything else. And so we're actually already at an elevated level. And so, you know, we have looked at all that. And I don't think there's a balance to the blasting. Like we spend a lot of time on this because it's super impactful to neighbors and like we don't want to have issues, right? Like our goal here is always to keep things running smooth for everybody. And so that's why we sort of cut the blast vibration level in half, but we didn't go to like 25%. Because if you go to 25%, now all of a sudden you're having three times as many blast events and you're having all that much more vibration and you're doing it like for a perception, right? Because the risk of damage is already halved. And now if you're going beyond that, you're just worried about people's perception of vibration, not necessarily the reality of what can cause damage. And so there's a balance there in terms of like impacts over time and project duration. What we're also doing is we're proposing the borrow pit will run simultaneous with the drilling on site. So we've got a 75 day timeline in the borrow pit, which is what we had proposed. That's happening simultaneous with the other work. So we're not like doing this one over here for 75 days and then this one over here for 75 days and then coming back for another. It'll all be happening simultaneously to sort of alleviate that concern. That was the question I had, whether you were doing this for years and years and years or you're saying 75 days, essentially. So the actual borrow pit timeline in the blast plan was 75 blast days, I believe. And so that would be the duration of it. That could take, it's 75 blast days for a reason because if their drill breaks down or whatever happens and they can't work, they're not gonna have a blast. So I think that would be the sort of, and then on top of that, there's a bit more work in the rest of the project. I can't remember offhand the total duration. It could be 120 days or something in that realm. Yeah, not years. Again, and this is only for those folks who live kind of there. I know what the science probably says, but the reality is gonna be nuisance. And so you don't wanna upset those people. For the folks on Old Farm Road and the folks in Hillside that we just sold homes to, I mean, it's gonna be a real impact, but we've spent a lot of time on it. We have a good company engaged to do it. We're gonna be doing pre-blast surveys for everyone's house, well within, well outside the 500, there's like a 500 foot circle. We're going way outside that. We don't wanna have anybody feel like we've ignored them. We're covering all that. We're paying for all the surveys. Anyone who wants one can get one. If something happens, we go back to the tape and say, hey, this is, this happened. It's unlikely, but all of that protection is gonna be there for folks. And so we're well aware of it. And I know that it's been sort of happening around the city. And so we tried to prepare as best we could for this conversation. So. Excuse me, Andrew, going back to John's point, I share his concern, I understand it. Are you saying given off days or broken drills and what have you at outside the main spot, the period, the duration is 120 days end to end? I have to double check the full project because I only was preparing for the borrow pit area that's highlighted in blue on this plan. The borrow pit itself is 75 days. I believe the whole project is 120 days. I can double check that. It's definitely not like 100, it's not 200 days. It's either 120, 125, 115, something like that. What I'm trying to get at is within, what are they bracket? In other words, is that 120, 125 blast days or 75 blast days within a 120, 125 day period? Here's the start point. Here's the end point. If you understand the question. Yeah, I believe it's 125 blast days. All right, and what does that indicate in terms of, in other words, when do people have to be apprehensive if that's the word or expecting the possibility that that day there's gonna be blasting? In other words, when's it over from the point at which it starts? I would love to be able to answer that definitively I think that the amount of variables that are involved in this process, it makes it really challenging. I, you know, I hillside. So what I would say is that, you know, there's saying 75 blast days within the blue circle, 120-ish blast days total, assume something like 25 to 30% days that are non-blasting. You can't blast every day. Sometimes it's really bad weather. Sometimes your stuff breaks. Sometimes both things happen. So maybe 30% more than that of days that this project is going on. You know, we've, this is blasting is somewhat different than a ledge removal by other means. It's a little bit more scientific. Well, that's all I'm trying to get at, you know, so the neighbors should expect an unpleasant six months. Is that fair? Is that how many days is that? 150? Six months is 180. I gave you 30 days. I think that's reasonable. And I mean, I can certainly have this conversation with the blasting contractor and make sure that I'm not speaking out of turn. But you know, that to me sounds reasonable. I think at hillside, we, you know, we had, we had a lot of blasting and I believe we got it all done in four to six months. So I was going to say last, I was going to say more like four, more like four months. Well, and then keep in mind- And this is a similar scope, a little bit bigger, but similar. There, you know, there are projects that are having problems with blasting, not blasting with ledge removal, not by blasting in the city. There are also projects like hillside that have handled it very well. And while we do try to learn from our mistakes, I don't know that we can always attribute them to, or assume that they will happen on every other project. You know, these folks have proven that they've done a pretty good job. I remember when blasting started actually on hillside and we got like three or four phone calls. And then they just stopped because O'Brien was really responsible about answering those calls and the word got around and he said, if you had a problem, you called Evan. And I don't think there was- Not me, Evan. I don't think that there was a lot of fuss about it, whereas on some other projects, there has been more fuss. So, you know, I wouldn't assume the best, but I wouldn't assume the absolute worst either. I would assume somewhere plan for the worst and hope for the best. Right, exactly. So who is your blasting company? Are they the folks in Maine? Maine drilling blasting, yeah. Okay, thanks. The ones who did hillside. Okay. I have a question that I'm not sure is or isn't related to this. When you were doing part of hillside, you had this humongous piece of machinery that you threw boulders into and it crushed it into like sand or smells. Are you doing that again? Yeah, so that's the proposed borrow pit there in the blue. Okay. So you have a portable rock crusher there to process the blasted stone and then reuse the stone in the project. Okay, thanks. I mean, I was fascinated by that, but I was just curious. Well, yeah, and it's a great, I think that that rock crusher is a great example of sort of what we got going on on the site because we had no complaints about the rock crushing, whether it was dust or noise. And I think it's worth pointing out that when you stood at hillside, looking at the rock crusher from far away, you couldn't hear it because the road and the traffic is so loud anyway that it sort of just bleeds into the background. And so we do really have a good site for this here. It's not the Southeast quadrant. It's not super quiet. It's a lively part of town. Okay, so number 15. This is a question about removal of dust outside the approval area. This one's a little bit, you know, tough for me to sort of figure out. I think it's tough to say, you know, a project of this scale to put a condition in place that if people have dust that they think is associated with the project that we need to remove it, you know, that could be trucks driving down the road, blasting, you know, getting dust on your windshield. It could be all the homes in the neighborhood that I just built saying that, you know, I got dust on their house and my permit says I need to clean it. I mean, I think we could be open to this if it's related to like some sort of dust event that happens from the crushing machine. But, you know, I think largely, you know, we operated a crusher at Hillside for months on end. We never had an issue with dust. You know, we control dust in our erosion prevention, sediment control plan deals with dust. Scott comes out and inspects for dust every other week, at least, at least files a report with the state. We apply, you know, calcium chloride when we're crushing rocks, we have a giant water tub there that they spray the rocks with when they're going in and to keep the dust down. So, you know, I think we're doing the right stuff on dust. The condition strikes me as a challenge, you know, so I care is what you guys think, but, you know, our preference would be not to have a condition. If we have some kind of massive dust explosion event, we're obviously going to take responsibility for that. You know, I don't know what that would be, so. And it's unavoidable that when you live in a construction zone, you're going to have dust. I know Evan committed to the eight RHOA that when the single family and duplex homes are finished and have been constructed and sold, you guys are going to go around and clean the windows and whatever. Yeah, we've been doing that, so. You have been doing it? We did it on the roads that are complete. So, like, Ledgeway and Laurentide Lane have all had their home, you know, fronts, freshly washed and cleaned. Okay, good. And so, you know, we will continue to do that. I mean, we do that stuff on our own without permit conditions, so I think, you know, I sort of, I think if we have dust, we'll take care of it. You know, that's our preference, but you guys can, if you are going to have a condition related to it, I would just want it to be specific enough that, you know, it's enforceable and knowable where the, you know, we're not arguing about where the dust came from. So, Board, what do you think would be a reasonable condition related to dust? Based on what I'm hearing, I think I'm of the mind right now that it's not particularly necessary to have it called that as a condition, but obviously, thank you. Other thoughts? I'm in agreement, but I don't think this is, unless there's been a specific concern or complaint, I don't think this, we need to condition it. I think it goes to an enforcement and self-regulation. Okay. Other people? Yeah, I agree. Dan, I'm sorry. I agree with that. I agree with Mark and Quinn, yeah. Does anyone not agree with that? Okay, sounds like we're good. Let's move on to number 16. This guy, you wanna take this one? Yeah, I guess. This is erosion and sediment control measures needing to comply with the city's policy. Yeah, I guess I was a little confused by this comment because I feel like all the list of things that they're requesting to be added to the plan are already there. So I don't know, maybe this is just something I can sit down with Dave or and or Marla to see what's missing and we don't need to get bogged down in specifics, but we're certainly willing to do all these things. And I thought I specifically had put them on the plans. Does that make sense for you guys, Jeff? Okay, great. Sounds like a plan. All right, number 17. We had this conversation about the duration of the 75 blast days. Yeah, just to kind of close the loop on that, our intention is that the borough pit area, so the blue area there, will be blasted in one nonstop phase, start to finish and completed. So the 75 blast days, take Marla's 25, 30%, it will be completed over the course of the coming winter provided we start in January. Our goal is get in there, get it done, get it over with by the spring. And I think that would be the intent. The blasting in the entirety of the neighborhood, there's potential that there could be bifurcated in two phases that might be a few months apart or a winter apart just to be clear about that. Is it better to blast in winter? Yeah, because the impacts are less because folks are generally inside with the window shut and they don't kind of hear any noise and does the snow provide some insulation? Yeah, it also a lot of moisture to help with dust. So it really is best to crush and blast in the winter. But it's like a 23 or 27 decibel reduction in sound levels from exterior to interior of the windows closed. So if you're, it's hardly perceptible that you're doing anything in winter. But just to be clear, the reason for bifurcating the blasting of the site is erosion. So like we can't just go all over the place doing this all at one big shot, right? Cause we'll have a whole 90 acres all dug up. So there's a necessity to sort of phase it. And that could, we could be able to successfully phase it and like restabilize and move through sequentially. But I think there's a likelihood there'll be a break to get like an area back to normal and then come back. So. Okay. I'm sorry, I just wanted to go back. Sure. I hate to do that. On the prior conversation around dust outside of the area there was language prior to that, right? About like paraphrase, but kind of best practices will they'll be responsible for best practices and maintaining dust. Some some specification on what they would do. Was there something in the language about that? Yeah. Yeah. Dust is controlled with the use of water for our calcium chloride for roads and drill machines are equipped with dust collectors. Those are perfectly acceptable conditions for us. They're a part of the plan. Great. Okay. So erosion and sediment control are we satisfied with the response? Board? I think we moved on. We moved on. We've moved, oh, we've moved on from that. Okay, 17. Oh yeah, duration of the 75 blast days. We've already kind of talked about that. All right. Blasting times, number 18. Will there be other work taking place before 7 a.m.? Will there be road closures during the blasting? Staff further recommends the board prohibit blasting and crushing work on federal holidays. So those are questions and then kind of a requirement. Yeah, there won't be any work before 7 a.m. So it would be not, to the point of the comment, there's literally no chance we would be blasting at 7 a.m. because it would require a bunch of work before 7 a.m. So it would be starting work at 7 a.m. on a given day. So no work before 7 a.m. Federal holidays, definitely not, that's fine. And the, what was the other question? Well, road closures are not, they're potentially needed, but not necessarily. And I think we would say, we can coordinate that with public works at the point in time that it was needed. It's not like something we know that we need to do. And it's certainly not something that would be necessary more than a handful of times. We'd like to see that happen between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. rather than 7 and 9 and 4 to 6. That's totally fine, yeah. Cause we would, I would not be very supportive of blasting before 9 a.m., I think, in general. And so, if the road closures have to be after, that's fine. So I think we can accommodate all that. Okay, great. Okay, number 19, construction vehicle management plan. Do you have one? Maybe. I thought we did. I think, do you guys have, it's like exhibit 191 is what I think is the best thing to look at. Gotten so good with our exhibit numbering lately, it just feels. I don't think we could, I don't think we could have that in the packet. Might have to go to the previous one. You discussed the beginning of the meeting. Or you can go into the application folder and pull it up too. Or is it shown on that rock site plan, Scott? Do you think Q2 or any of those? Maybe, no. Well, so, while he's looking up exhibit 191, I guess. Maybe 156 that you have right there, may show what we're talking about. No, it doesn't. Well, so, I mean, I guess it's a good enough plan to sort of, if you can find the 191, but we can talk about this one for the time being. So we absolutely understand the sort of wanting to know how you're getting from that blue trapezoid or whatever it is up to the project area. So the EPSC plans have a road, a construction road showing where exactly where it's going, how we're getting up to the project site, call the project site the barn, right? How we're getting from the bottom of the hill up to the barn is mapped out. And then in the EPSC plans, like sort of throughout the plans, we have different stabilized pads, entrances, access points, we have lay down areas called out. So there you go. So that's your road, right? Coming up from Kimball up into the project site. And so we have made commitments to where some of these more major haul roads would be. And I'm hoping that that's meeting the need here. I think, if you start getting into trying to predict how we're gonna be moving around the actual area we're building in, it's super challenging to come up with a plan that is gonna hold up. And so I think, we've sort of shown how we're gonna get this road up there. We can talk about how or when we would retire this road. You can see there, the road going down is like where we have a little fill area that we proposed. So it's showing how we're gonna get down there for depositing fill in that location. So I guess I'm a little bit curious, like in the intention of the comment, like how in the weeds of how we're moving around the site are we trying to get? And so like, is this sort of what we had in mind? Like a big picture, how are you getting from A to B? I think so. I mean, to be honest, like I said earlier, this project suffers from restorative information and I miss that this was on these plans. Is there any information available? I think the other piece that we were looking for was something about timing and how much of this, not necessarily like when, but like how much at a time or like weather or sequence or anything. Is there any information available already that talks about either sequencing or duration? So I think, what you're looking at on this plan will almost have to be done right away because this is how, because we're planning on doing the quarry and crushing right away to use material to build the roads. And then outside of this area, the thought is that construction vehicles will move along the footprints of the proposed roads at least until the houses are built. So what you're looking at here will need to be done basically right away and then anything else will be sequentially parallel to tell their construction. And in terms of like how long the road would live for, I would say as long as it can stay there until we're complete, I think there's a home on either side of that road and there's a very slim likelihood that we could build those homes and keep that road. So that's a little bit of, and we would probably try to delay selling those two lots until we had a sufficient amount of the infrastructure built. I mean, the intention of this road is did not be on Kimmel Avenue and Old Farm Road, right? So we have all of this material for building the roads stockpiled down here. This stockpiled area is like totally out of sight from the neighborhood, right? There's a wetland massive green buffer behind it, a big wetland, like a ton of sort of setback. You can't see it from the neighborhood. You can really only see it from Kimmel Avenue, which is an industrial style road. So it felt to us like this was a good spot to be staging the project. So because one thing we suffered from at Hillside was like we're constantly moving our staging area around and it was a nightmare and it costs a ton of money and it is super inefficient. And it becomes like a thing that you're just doing all the time, moving your job trailers, moving all of your staging and as you're building houses further and further away. So the goal here was be one place, live there for the project, don't have to move it. And so the intent would be to keep this road in place until the infrastructure was built. And at that point, it could go away because we wouldn't necessarily be hauling material around. I'm gonna ask what may be a dumb question actually. It may be that you've already said this, but I'm only just now getting my head around what you're saying. So this road that you're showing on this sheet, EPSC four, is how you get from the construction staging area to the 155 homes. That's great. And then I looked at the other sheets that are around this, like the other pre-construction plans and they don't show like a central core road, but they do show construction entrances like you see on the left here to each of the other roads. So is, can I infer from that that once you're off of this haul road thing, you are otherwise following the proposed roads? That's right. Largely, yeah, largely, yeah. You know, at least until the homes are built and the road is in at that point, we might put in something sort of parallel so that we're not running like track machines down a brand new road, similar to what we've done at Hillside. But the intent would be to have, you know, construction traffic follow up the roads. After the, I mean, obviously after the roads are in, right? So there's a middle ground there where you don't have a road and you're just getting started on the road. So you're obviously not following a road. Right, but you're not driving through the middle of whatever. You're driving along where the road will be. In the area where you're doing work, yeah. For sure. So are we... And to that point, those questions like, disturbance to areas otherwise not disturbed or approved for disturbance, you know, in outside phases. I think, you know, some of that stuff is fine to say, like we're not going to just, we're not gonna cut down a wooded area in a different part of the site that isn't part of the phase that we're building. So like that's fine to, you know, we can accept that as a condition or, you know, other than what we're approved to do, right? So the quarry area has got some clearing. That road is gonna need some clearing. All these phases that we're building will need that. But we're certainly not gonna go clear a phase that we haven't opened for construction to like run a truck through it or something. I don't think that's, we would run the truck through the field, right? Like there's fields out there. So I think, you know, saying that we're not gonna be clearing phases that aren't bonded for is perfectly reasonable. Okay. Are we good on the construction vehicle management plan? I think I just need to spend more time looking at it. Like I said, I didn't see these sheets, but I think I understand it. How does the board feel about the idea that they're gonna be, I mean, is this Hall Road that Marty has up now in the alignment of anything between IC road and... So the majority of it, as you go down towards Kimball Avenue is on the alignment of Potash Road. And then it cuts up basically along the alignment of the future rec path. And so it is situated strategically. It's in the widest, it's in the spot. It's in the widest spot between two houses on the site. We have extra width between the houses in that area. So that is another reason we'll hopefully be able to maintain it in one spot rather than having to move it around. Okay. And I guess there's kind of a closing thought on it. We do have, there are obviously a lot of conditions we need to comply with about all roads. So any road that we put in, anywhere that trucks are driving, we have to have a silt fence in place. We have to have these stabilized entrances. We have, Scott comes out every other week. And despite the fact that he's our engineer, he's very rigid about these issues. And it's, you know, every week there's a report, it goes to the state, it goes to the contractor, it goes to me and we go out and we address any issues. So, you know, if there is a need to drive across a field, which I think we need to be able to do just to be clear whether that field is in the active phase or not, like we need to be able to access our own land with vehicles, you know, whether it's an ATV to drive around to look at something or a tractor or a, you know, an excavator, we need to be able to drive around the site. And that's as like sort of a blanket. But if we're driving over and over again in one location, it's making a de facto haul road. We're going to have to stabilize it. We're going to have to put a silt fence in. We're going to have to create something that's not a muddy mess or we're going to be out of compliance with the erosion standards that are in place already for the project. Okay, let's move on. I'm aware of time, we have 20 more minutes and we still have public comments. So let's see if we can blast through these, no pun intended, number 20. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to describe how the materials proposed to be removed with the intent of understanding what interim situation may occur. If there is the potential for leaving a large depression pit, the board may wish to require a sur- surety for the site restoration. Scott and I talked about this earlier. The proposed borrow pit is not going to leave a hole. Like there's not going to be a pond or a depression. It's essentially just taking a knob down to the surrounding areas level. So there is no hole proposed. Okay, are we satisfied with that board? We're also proposing a sur-ty for the restoration of the area already. So we had proposed $50,000. I think it's in another one of the comments, but we're happy to provide a bond for the restoration of the area. If 50,000 is not enough, if public works has a different opinion, we can up that. That was just our estimate. Okay, 21. Um, staff in- instead recommends the board include a condition that the construction staging area be restored no longer than 18 months after the issuance of the most recent zoning permit for the approved homes. Can you live with that? We talked about this and I believe the condition, I'm just reading it again now. I believe the condition was fine, but we wanted to qualify it to say, you know, any zoning permit for the project. So the staging area is meant to serve the whole project, not just the 155 homes. So like we could complete the 155 homes and then be approved for a building on one of the C1LR lots and still want to be using that staging area to store materials. I think, you know, you could evaluate at that point in time whether that we're going to have to come back for approval of that other building anyway, whether that makes sense or not. But ideally- I think that's what the suggestion was, is if you wanted to use it for more than 155 homes, you could ask to do so at the time that you seek board approval for that new principal structure. But the concern was that, you know, if there is no limit and, you know, you could just say, well, we're not done because there are still some IC lots that are open and then we have this construction staging area for 15 years. I think that, you know, the staging area could definitely be there for a number of years. I mean, that's sort of the intention of it. I think there's also a scenario where it goes away very quickly because somebody wants all of the land in the IC for a use and we need to remove it. So we're trying to locate like a sort of out of the way, really good. I mean, the reason we like that spot is because it has easy access to Kimball Avenue. It's along the alignment of an approved street and it's just a great spot to park stuff. If you guys feel like it's okay for the 155 homes but we wanna revisit it at the end, we can certainly live with that. I don't see a problem with that. I think it's gonna make as much sense to have that there for the next thing as it does now. And so, you know, we're happy to have that conversation then and that's fine. I think the condition is worded is fine. If we stop building homes for 18 months, we should certainly need to get rid of this ISOR staging area. So I think that was all reasonable. You know, I would say as long as we're pulling zoning permits and building this project that I would prefer to just be able to use the staging area but that's your discretion on that. So we'll live with it either way. Okay. You said you might wanna use this for the commercial areas as well, not just the homes. Exactly, yeah. I mean, if we're finished the homes and it's conceivable, right? That just as a lay down area or keeping the job trailer there. I mean, you set up a job trailer. You have to have infrastructure for the toilets. You have to have electricity, power, cable, internet, all these things and a lot of times you pave the thing so that it's not such a nightmare in the winter and whatnot. So it's nice to keep it for a while but I understand the intention here. So we're happy to do what we need to do. Okay, we good board? So do you wanna decide in deliberations or do you wanna provide some feedback now? I think at the very least the language would want to include and or zoning for commercial. Because it says homes. If they for some reason switched up, we're just doing commercial for now then. What other members think? Sorry, I'm thinking has them. For the 18 months. But they would have to still pull the permit. That would be my understanding of this conversation was that would come up in the discussion of the commercial building, right? Yeah, they'd have to come in front of the board for any commercial. So yeah, anyway. So yeah, I don't know if it would be appropriate to call out that in this permit given that this is just for the homes, right? Or is that correct this? Yeah, right. So that would be my thought around that. Other comments board? Yeah, I'm in agreement with the idea separate entity from the residential at this point. So I would just leave it as it's no residential permit for living in 18 months. The construction staging area to be restored. And if the applicant wants to bring that up with us when with the submission for commercial permit, we can discuss it at that time. Yeah, I agree with Mark. Okay. Anyone disagree? You do. Yeah, but that's what I mean. Okay. Okay. All right. In the prior meeting, we talked about the idea of there's this grand plan that we're only looking at this but we have to understand the grand plan and consider that. So it sounds like in this case, we're saying the reverse of that idea which we expressed the last time. I see. Yeah. Okay. Like I said, it's going to make sense to have it there for the next project and the board, future board. You guys, I'm sure that they'll realize it and I'm sure it'll all work out. So we're, it's great. You guys can, no issue. I can, I'll make sure it's highlighted in the draft decision and the board can talk about it. Yeah, okay. I'm going to read number 22, the city's public nuisance ordinance prohibits construction. Well, we kind of covered this. You're not, you're not going to do anything on federal holidays. It's great. Yeah. No worries. 23, staff has requested the DPW review of the proposed amount anticipates having an update at the time of the hearing. Yeah. I did get an update from Tom and let me just go back to read it. What he said is that 50,000 was an adequate surety, especially because the blasted materials will have an inherent value. Okay. So we're good with that. You want to know how easy it is to get rid of like 40,000 yards of blasted crushed stone. I just put a free sign up, watch it go. Is that right? I, it would disappear very quickly. That was our take on it too. If there's a pile of stone there, we can, some contractor will truck it away for free to have it, right? So it has a value. Okay. All right. The last comment. Staff recommends the board discuss whether to require a certain percentage of roofs be oriented for optimum solar gain. Right. The homes have, I guess what the applicant was saying is that the homes, you can take the same home and say, well, I want my roof pointed towards the front and I want, and somebody else could say the same home, but I want my room, my room pointed side to side. And so should there be a condition like we have on a lot of other development projects that says, well, no more than, you know, 20% of homes shall have their roofs oriented away for maximum solar gain. Just like on another project, we would say, no more than three homes can be of the same type or the same color or whatever, it would be a condition like that. So a certain percentage of roofs to be oriented to, so what would a percentage be? I mean, would you suggest a percentage? And how to, first let me ask, how do board members feel about having a requirement that a certain percentage be oriented for solar gain? I feel it's unnecessary. I stand by the original comments we made at preliminary. So you feel it's unnecessary, Dan? Yeah, I feel it's unnecessary given our previous finding at preliminary plat. This development does more to deal with climate change than these other requirements of micromanagement. Okay, other thoughts? I agree with Dan. So part of the reason we put this in here is the current review and consideration of a climate action plan. So this is one of those things that has become more important to the city since preliminary plat. Yeah, we certainly appreciate the sort of direction of the city. I think we're definitely committed to the efficiency and energy efficiency of these homes. We are currently analyzing all the aspects of how we're gonna be building the home and programs with car chargers and solar ready roofs, conduits running to the roofs, pre-wiring for electric vehicles. I mean, we're enrolled currently in the efficiency Vermont program. These homes are gonna be enrolled in the National Green Building Standard Program, potentially the Energy Star Program. We are definitely doing all these things. I think this particular condition would be challenging particularly since it wasn't something that came up at preliminary plat and all the home designs are already done and all the roofs are oriented the way they're oriented. So if the condition were written such that like the current plans would comply on the lots where the plans fit, maybe it wouldn't necessarily be a problem but it's sort of like the height question where it's like I can't begin to fathom how I would analyze which of these homes could meet this standard or what it means. And also the lots are just oriented the way they're oriented. So some of them don't run appropriately for optimum solar gain because they're running with the contours of the land. And I think it's something that certainly coming up at this point would be problematic for us. So I appreciate the feedback from that. Does anyone on the board feel differently than Dan and Frank? I just want to clarify it sounds like and I don't know if this is already a requirement but all the buildings will be, homes will be solar ready even if they're not oriented for optimal solar gain. Absolutely, yep. And we run a conduit inside the house as well from the panel to the roof so that people don't have to put everything on the outside and have it look all bundled up. So yeah, then I'm of similar thought to Dan and Frank, I think. Yeah, and I'm agreement as well. Okay, anyone doesn't agree? Okay. All right, that's it for the comments. So let's see if there's any members of the public who are interested in commenting. Do we have any who have expressed an interest or anyone raised their hand? Who's on the, looks like there are none. Okay. All right, thank you for your time. I'm going to ask for a motion to continue this hearing. To, yeah, so this is a bit of a discussion. I had originally held time on this on the November 1st agenda. Looking at all the things where we have said, or where the applicant has said, yep, we'll address that. And the fact that we don't have any of that stuff yet and that I have to send it to all the internal city departments. I'm pretty nervous about getting stuff done in time for the packet for the November 1st hearing because it has to be done five days before that. I'm inclined to recommend this be continued to the second November hearing. I don't know if that like gives you heart palpitations. I mean, do you have stuff ready to submit like tomorrow or is it going to be two weeks from now? And I, if we recommend to the second October, November meeting, I wouldn't be looking for stuff on, you know, two weeks before that, I'd be looking for it three weeks before that. So we'd compromise, we'd get three weeks and we'd get three weeks rather than you getting two weeks and us getting two weeks. Most of the plan changes we talked about are done. I think maybe there's a couple of minor things we talked about tonight, but. Yeah, I think it's definitely important for us to kind of move forward. I think we're sort of budding up against, you know, I guess if the intention is, I think I understand your point and like it would be nice to have a little bit more time to sort of get everything buttoned up. And if the intention is that we could sort of close the hearing at that point like and be done, you know, maybe that. Yeah, the intention is very much to close at the next hearing, whether it's a draft decision or just a set of cleanup staff comments may be the difference between November 1st and November 15th. To be more likely to have an actual decision on the 15th is what you're saying. And I can't guarantee that, but that'd be my objective. If we're aiming for the first, I think there's no way I can even hope to do that. Which means we're deliberating on the 15th with a draft decision either way. Right. It's just whether or not. Yeah, I think, I mean, look, we want to do what works for you guys. I think if that in the end is going to expedite things anyway, then, you know, why not take the time? But yeah, definitely. I guess the flip side is if there's things that you think or the board thinks need to be discussed more, take the standard date, get the discussion out of the way, and we'll, you know, maybe it's just a short night on the discussion stuff. And then we, you know, wrap everything up with a draft decision later. But if we don't think that there's other stuff that needs to be reviewed with the board before they open and do a final button up, then I think the 15th is probably okay. You know, we got through the comments from the last, you know, we got through the C1LR stuff. I'm not sure that there's anything else that we feel like we need to, I mean, like Scott said, I think the plans are largely done. I think, you know, updating the landscaping plans with the street tree stuff might take a few days, a week, I don't know if Carolyn's still on the call. We could certainly, I think we could. I am still on the call. Yeah, it's going to take more than a couple of weeks. It's quite an extensive amount of work. So, you know, why don't we go with the one, the later date and hope for the draft decision and the quick turnaround on the backside. We're talking about the 15th of November. Hey, Carolyn, can you go on mute again, please? Oh, sorry. Yeah, I think, I mean, there's a lot of changes here and it probably makes sense to get them all summarized and to get a good, you know, memo back into you guys with everything, so. Let me ask this. Does any member of the board think there are any real substantive issues that we need to spend a lot of time on? Or are we really just cleaning up, reviewing, whatever? My question is beyond this stuff, is there a whole bunch of other stuff, because it seems like there's always this expansion. This is the end. This is the end. The end is near. We haven't discussed ownership of the rec pads, I think, or not the rec pads, the rec open spaces because I think the board kind of tasked us with city and applicant. You figure it out. We are close to having that figured out. We've been having meetings with them. I gave them your feedback on phasing, particularly phasing of sidewalk on Old Farm Road and relocation of North End of Old Farm Road. We need revised plots to show subdivision that aligns with what you're proposing in the C1LR. Yeah, yep. Those are just the things that strike me as the big things. Yeah, the plots are done. I could send you to eat tomorrow. It didn't seem to me that there's a huge amount of. Yeah, I don't think so. No, it doesn't. Okay, well let's. I presume that you guys are, I mean, you can still be working on this, the decision stuff along the way, right? So it's not, it's gonna take some time to get this done. And I don't think, you know, if we meet on the first and we just haven't had any chance to work on it, it doesn't really help at all because we're still gonna get the decision on December 1st or 2nd or whatever it is. And if we meet on the 15th and then we get it two weeks later, you know, the first week has six weeks later, like. It's still the same endpoint, yeah. It's still at the same end. So I defer to your judgment on that, but absolutely like we are, you know, we have a company of folks who you want to get started and we're anxious to do so. Let's do what you suggest. I think we can, it would be a better use of the board's time to do it on the 15th. I agree. Certainly make all of our teams life easier for the next three weeks anyway, getting this into you. Yeah, so we'll split that time. You get three weeks and we get three weeks with it. So that's not fair. We're gonna shoot to get it to you, Senator. So I would entertain a motion to continue this hearing until November 15th. I'll make a motion. We continue SD 2210 of 500 Old Farm Road to November 15th. Thank you, Mark. Do I have a second? Thank you. Thanks, Dan. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any nays? Okay. We'll see you back here on November 15th. Thank you, guys. Thank you. We really appreciate it. Thanks for sticking it out with us for four years on this. Okay. Minutes. There were no minutes. I didn't think there were. Okay. The business. I guess the mess is over. Go in peace. Thanks, good to go. Good night, everyone. Good night. Mark, I hope you feel better. Thanks, staff. Appreciate it. Thanks, Dan. Good night. Night.