 Okay, so today is July 18th, 2022. I'm Abby White and I'm going to call this meeting of the Development Review Board in Montpelier to order. As a first matter of business, I would like to take a motion. To elect an acting chair for tonight's meeting. Our chair and vice chair are unable to be in attendance. So we need a acting chair to. Lead the meeting. So I will take a motion. Make a motion. I second the motion. I'll take a motion. I'll take a motion. I'll take a motion. I'll be white to be the chair for this meeting. Acting chair. In the absence of Rob Goodwin. Okay. So Sharon. I'll second that. Okay. So, so. First by. Jean second by Sharon. Okay. Great. So how do you vote? Sharon. Yeah. Catherine. Yes. Rob. Oh no, no, Rob. Sorry. Gene. Yes. Okay. So we have a chair. Now we will proceed with the meeting. Okay. So I'm going to hand it over to you, Meredith, just to review remote meeting procedures and process. Yes. Okay. So for everybody looking attending remotely, I'm going to be sharing my screen for a minute. This is more. The share screen is more for somebody watching via Orca. For anybody who hasn't done this with us. There's a few little tidbits in here for you too. So for anyone viewing this meeting via Orca media, you can participate in tonight's meeting by putting this link into your web browser and it'll open up the zoom meeting. And you'll be able to participate through that. That software, that platform, be able to see, share screens, talk. You can also call into this phone number and plug in this meeting ID. And that will allow you to hear everything over the phone that's going on as well as speak. So either one of those is a good way to participate in tonight's meeting. If someone is having problems accessing the meeting, please email me mcrandall at Montpelier hyphen vt.org. I will be monitoring my email throughout the meeting. For those attending via zoom, turning your video on is optional. And if you're having issues with lag, often turning your video on is optional. And if you're having issues with lag, often turning your video off through zoom will allow the rest of the process to keep working. For everyone who is attending remotely, please keep your microphone on mute when you're not speaking. This will reduce background noise and conflicts. Please reserve the zoom chat function for troubleshooting or logistics questions. Keep any substantive comments or questions to verbal. And when you do have a question or comment, you can raise your hand either physically. If your video option is on or using the raise hand button on your toolbar, it should be down on the bottom on your zoom interface. We don't, we just have a few members of the public on tonight. So I'm not going to worry too much right now about comment limits. The chair does have the option to limit time for comments should that arise. If we have a bunch of more people log on. And finally, if I find out through my email that members of the public are having, are not able to get into the meeting and I've worked with them and we can't get them in, we will have to continue the meeting to a time and place certain, which would probably be the next regular DRB meeting. I will now hand the meeting back over to our acting chair. Great. So now we'll move on to approve the agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as published? So moved. Thanks, Catherine. Is there a second? Thanks, Sharon. Okay, Joe, how do you vote? He's there, but we can't hear him. He may have lost audio. So. Oh, great. All right. How do you vote? Yes. Thank you, Sharon. Catherine. Yes. And I vote yes as well. So we have an agenda. All right. Next comments from the chair. No comments for me this evening. So we will next review and approve meeting minutes from the last meeting which was June 20th. I believe the only folks eligible to vote are. Myself, Sharon. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And you weren't here. Process question. I came on late. I was. Yeah. That's okay. Okay. Okay. That's fine. All right. So is there a motion to, or any, any. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? A motion to approve the agenda. Oh, sorry. The minutes. All right. Thanks, Sharon. Is there a second? Okay. Okay. So, Jean, how do you vote? Yes. All right, Sharon. Yeah. Catherine. Yep. And I vote yes as well. So the minutes are approved. Okay. Great. So moving on to. The two different applications. We're first going to start with 401 Parkway street. So what I'd like to do is turn it over to Meredith just to provide an overview. Of this application. And are there, are there witnesses. But this one as well. Yeah. Once I give the overview, we can swear in the witness point, I think, but there's a, there's a witness or two. Yeah. I mean, we've got the applicant. We've got Kara who might be she's a, and then. I don't think we have anybody else. I do have, well, let me, let me do my overview. Do the over. Okay. So this application from the city of Montpelier parks. Department is coming before the development review board because it includes work within the 500 foot vernal pool buffer. So that's what triggered development review board review. I think that it would have required a zoning permit anyway, because it also triggers minor site plan review. Normally that would just be administrative. But the whole, whole thing is coming here for the, to the board because of that vernal pool buffer. And it just didn't make sense to split it up. Because this is work that is part of a municipal facility, really the whole parks network there at Hubbard park. So the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the planning departments and the DRB's zoning authority or regulatory authority is limited. By 24 BSA 44 13. And I've outlined that in the staff report. But the wetlands review. Because it includes this setback situation setbacks are one of those very specific items. They're not necessarily under 44 13. So I really, I didn't, I didn't see any way to say, no, they're exempt. It just didn't work for that. So this is one of those things that because we do have regulatory authority, we have to go through the process. So, but there are certain things as noted in the staff report where. We're not allowed to have zoning authority over certain things, because the list is very, very specific. So things like stormwater controls, there's no language in the statute that lets us look at those and regulate them really at all. The application makes clear how they're dealing with those, but those aren't things that we can put conditions on. We do have some comments that I circulated via email, and I have printed copies here in the council chambers. We had comments from a final letter from the Montpelier Conservation Commission on the project. So just to note that the Montpelier Conservation Commission doesn't have a specific clause in our zoning regulations that pulls them in to review this, but the parks director wanted to get their input on the project. So it's still advisory, but even sort of a lower level advisory than normal when their review is specifically triggered, but they have input. So it's more considered sort of a public comment in some ways at this point. And then we also have a comment from an abutting property owner. So when the acting chair feels like they want me to read those into the record, I can. Alec, the applicant has gotten copies of these comments as well. So that's that's what I've got. So I'm thinking, Abby, probably swearing our witnesses that are online and then the applicant can present their product there. Is the applicant not going to start with the overview? Well, but then the overview wouldn't be testimony if they're not sworn in. So we got to swear them in. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were going to start with other people. Alec, Alec Ellsworth is the applicant. He's the parks director. So yeah, that's what I was going to say, Alec. But but we've got to swear them him in first and swear everybody in. Great. OK. So do we do it as a group or do we do it? So everybody for this application as a group. So Alec and Cara, if you could unmute and if you want, turn on your video and Abby is going to swear you in because you're giving testimony if you speak. OK. So do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? I do. I think that was a yes from Cara if you speak. Yes. OK, great. So that's it. Awesome. So so Alec, would you like to just provide an overview of the project? Sure, I'd be happy to. Thanks for taking the project on here. So the project came to light as part of the city's ADA transition plan, which I believe is adopted in 2018. The city hired an outside consultant to go through all city facilities and identify where where we could make things more accessible. What were the low hanging fruit and what were some of the biggest projects and for each facility they made priority rankings. So one of the facilities was Hubbard Park. Access to the parks is premier feature, which was a which is the tower was put as a highest priority level for folks who need accessible accessibility, accessible areas. So we started thinking about how to provide that and combined it with a project that we had cooking already, which was to refurbish an existing interpretive trail in the park. And in the fall of 2020, we went to the parks commission to propose a project in order to be able to apply for the recreational trails program grant through the state of Vermont. They approved the project. We applied, we were successful and have been working through the permitting since then. We got a wetland permit from the state for one area that needs to go through a wetland working through this permit. Obviously, we put the trail design build out to bid over the winter of 21-22. We hired a firm called Timber and Stone, which in my opinion is the best trail building company in Vermont. Maybe in New England and definitely some of the top trail builders in the country, they've done projects all over the region, including like 60 stone stairs down to the base of Niagara Falls and the accessible boardwalk at the Smuggler's Notch. Really high profile projects and they're based out of this month earlier. So we're really happy that their bid came in competitive and they've been working on us working with us on the design since the winter from the winter through now. The project fits into a bigger context going back to the ADA transition plan. There were a number of items in there for Hubbard Park, including making one of the shelters accessible, having an accessible outhouse, having accessible parking, all things that we currently lack. So the plan, this project fits into a bigger plan for the new shelter which if you don't know what the new shelter and the old shelter is, like most people, the new shelter is the one that's at the end of the road or the one that's not at the sledding hill. So that shelter has we put a lot of work into making it accessible to access in and out of the shelter last year and put accessible picnic tables in. And we're planning to add this trail. And then we're also planning to add a accessible composting toilet in the fall through ARPA funds. So it's it's, you know, definitely a big project. And it's exciting for us for the park. And the last sort of benefit is that it will help us close down a number of trails that have just popped up on, you know, their deer paths or whatever that turned into recreational use paths that are not professionally designed and fall right down the grade and are subject to erosion. So in addition to putting in this nice professionally built trail, we're looking forward to getting rid of the other ones. All right, thanks, Alec. Are there questions from the board, Sharon, go ahead. I guess I had one question about I noticed that there was some question about whether they were both vernal tools or whether one was a forested wetland area. On the map. So Alec, why don't you speak to the site conditions and then I'll speak to how we regulate under that under that provision. Does that work? Sure. Yeah, so the let's see the area in between the new shelter and Hubbard Park and the tower at the bottom near the new shelter is what I believe is in zoning as a vernal pool on our on our map, our natural resources map that we have some interpretive signage around it. There's actually the driveway to the new shelter goes right by it. And so the trail actually the closest the trail goes to the vernal pool is one hundred and twenty feet, which was not close enough to require us to get a permit from the state. But it is close enough for the city because of the five hundred foot limit. And from there, it goes uphill. And so a universally accessible trail needs to meet certain grade standards. So it needs to be like you can go any distance for under five percent and then smaller distances above that that are all delineated in the accessible trail guidelines in between about halfway between the new shelter and the tower, there's a large forested wetland that is we had delineated as part of our process with the state. Unfortunately, because we couldn't get we couldn't stay outside the buffer of that wetland and keep the grades at what they needed to be to maintain that universally accessible standard, we needed to basically cross one of the outlets of that wetland. And so that's what we needed the permit for through the state. We had a site visit with Shannon Morrison, the state wetland specialist, and she helped us through the permitting process. And we now have a permit to do a culver or bridge over that area and then continue on upward, after which we have no wetland impact. So as far as what the second vernal pool is, I'm not I'm not familiar with the second vernal pool. But is that the same thing as the wetland? Right. Yes. So on our on the natural resources inventory map, the the the forested wetland where you're getting the wetland general permit for that work. Yeah. Is noted as both a sort of protected natural community and a vernal pool on our map. And that's the the city is bound to regulate to our map in this. Yeah. So so even though, even though they get a wetlands permit for that work. Yeah. Our regulations specifically say that even if you have a wetlands permit, you know, state permit for that work, if you're in the vernal pool buffer per map, you still have to go through the vernal pool analysis. OK, yeah. We have to basically the the Montpellier Conservation Commission is responsible for updating the map. So they have to update the map before we can change how we regulate it. Thank you. But you can, you know, the criteria for meeting that vernal pool buffer requirement. It doesn't say you have to meet all of them. These are the considerations as applicable, given what's happening on the ground. OK, I'm just confused there. Yeah. But did that make I mean, I tried to explain it in the staff report, but it is still confusing. No, that's helpful. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Alex. Other questions from the board? Yes. Go for it. Go ahead, Sharon. Alec, have you had a chance to look at the conservation report that came in or the report from them? Contribution Commission that came in. I have looked at their letter. Yeah, that is all everything that they requested is totally we were going to do anyways. We have no intention of cutting any large trees or changing the canopy at all. We are going to, you know, the trail will will seamlessly interact with the surrounding woodland so that amphibians can cross over it. There are a couple places where it's up against ledge where we'll need to put some large rocks to hold the trail in. But amphibians wouldn't be burrowing into rock anyways, as far as I know. So those, you know, those areas are small and wouldn't be suitable habitat anyways. So everything that they outlined, we are already doing. So happy to happy to comply. OK, thank you. I do have a question, Alec. I'm wondering if if you contemplated other designs and what led you to kind of settle on this one? Other designs in terms of the trail route? Yes. Yeah. So I mean, the Tower Road is obviously the most seemed like the best route because it's already gravel. You know, the surface itself could be made to be accessible, but the grades are way off the requirements for that trail. So we needed an alternate route. And rather than just doing a bunch of little loops up the Tower Road, we thought it would be a much better trail experience to actually create this whole new trail that also, you know, was an interpretive trail, which we wanted to do anyways, that paralleled the tower loop so that could be, you know, enjoyed by most people in a loop, you know, people who actually need the accessible component, it'll be an outback. But for us, we decided because we wanted to do this interpretive trail, we're going to keep them separate. We're going to make them both park features. And there are a number of side benefits to it, too. Like, you know, for Enchanted Forest, our big event in the fall will now have a really lovely loop instead of an out and back. And it's, you know, the trail will likely be able to be groomed for skiing in the winter, so it'll be a year round used trail. And other than that, you know, there really was not a good way to get to the Tower because it's, you know, at the top of the hill. It's it's hard to get to. All the other approaches are much deeper. OK, thanks. It also sounded like from the application that constructing this trail enables you to take some other trails out of commission. What will that change have like overall on the impact on the vernal pools in the park? OK. So let's see. The the trail will actually remove. We're actually coming further away from that upper upper vernal pool or wetland than the old trail did. So. We only go through the 50 foot buffer and across about six foot of the outlet to the wetland, whereas the other trail actually goes into the buffer and into the wetland on the existing trail. So we're going to remove all that. Unfortunately, we didn't get any credit for that with our wetland permit or with this, but it is a good thing. Anyways, I mean, the other side of that is that, you know, it's going to be a very different character of trail because this one will be, you know, much more built up in the sense that it has like a gravel surface, whereas the other one is just like a natural surface. But, you know, I think as far as I know, oh, hang on, I got a good night coming in. As far as I know, the the impact will be, you know, similar to what it is now or less. This is where the pause. We can keep going. You know, you don't have to stop on my account. It's OK, Allie. You've got a lot of people with kids on. All right, don't let me know when you'll be there. You know, you need me to stop and put the record of public comment to me about her or just. OK, that sounds good. Oh, my goodness. All right. Yeah, yeah. So we'll we'll move on for for now. Yeah, I'm good to go. Sorry, I'm good to go here. OK, all right, great. Unless you have to swear him into. No, I think I think we're good. So so, Meredith, would you mind summarizing the the email we received from Lisa Burns? Yep. So and I sent this to Alec as well. So Lisa Burns is an abutting property owner and she sent an email. I'm going to try to summarize just two main concerns. One was site selection. So where the trail actually runs, where the new trail is actually going to run. And, you know, having both environmental concerns about it going through the wetlands area and a stand of large pines over ledge. And there are various issues around that. I did send this round to all the board members. And. I'm sorry, it's in also concerns about if a suitable route is located that it will need to access the accessible toilet. And finally ended the non ADA compliant Hubbard Park Tower. Also worried that it will not be a loop. And so that the people using the need, the universally acceptable trail would have to go back down the same ground. She said her second concern was haste of the project and that the fact that the Parks Commission is looking to begin the project as soon as possible and completing it in time for Enchanted Forest. I think she just felt like it wasn't enough time for consideration. And also about the whether or not the trail would be able to be maintained. So. Okay. So, Alec, I'm wondering if there's any if there's any response you'd like to make. To those questions. Sure. Yeah, I'd be happy to. So in terms of timeline, like I said in my intro, you know, we put this in front of the Parks Commission. In the fall of 2020. And we went through grant application with pre application. We went in front of the Parks Commission again. We got the grant. We've been through multiple permitting processes that require, you know, letters to a butters, public comment periods. We have had a update to the Parks Commission and my staff up to a date to them every time since, you know, the pre application in the fall of 2020. So, you know, I appreciate that people can, it can feel rushed if you just found out about it. But, you know, from my perspective, we've been working on this for almost two years and are now getting close to construction. In terms of the actual route. You know, I'm sympathetic to Lisa's point of view. You know, we, we can see, we can see into this. As a staff, we mapped it out roughly. We got the grant and then we hired a professional to tell us if it could be done or not. And, you know, what they told us is that it could be done. And then this is how much it's going to cost. We had a bid process, you know, where the, where the route was published and did a walk through with all the bidders. So people had an opportunity to see what, you know, what the project was and we still got multiple bids. So, you know, I, I, I'm, you know, both sympathetic to the point of view and also have been told by people that know what they're doing, that this is possible. I trust their opinion. That's why we hired them. Also had a, you know, walk through with the state wetland specialist who didn't seem concerned about it either. So we, I'm not sure about the accessible outhouse. What that comment is about. It will dovetail with the accessible outhouse, which has not been built yet and be by the new shelter. And in terms of the maintenance, we're actually trying to get rid of the exact trails that I think Lisa is referring to because they're not built by the staff. They're, you know, just beat in trails that are not sustainably routed. So we don't maintain them on purpose because we don't want to. They're not good trails. Any, any maintenance that we would do would be to close them down. So that's, that's our goal as part of this project is to, you know, make the trails in the park that we have easier to take care of and easier to maintain and last much longer. Yeah. Were there any of her concerns that I missed? What was that? I think, I think you covered it, Alec. Thank you for that. Okay. So I go ahead and Meredith, there's somebody who signed on part way through and actually, I think we've got Joe coming back in. Michael Pavy. That's my husband. Oh. Okay. My kids. Oh, oh, oh, oh, this is so your kids can see you. That's awesome. We're having a kid night. Yeah. Okay. Awesome. Oh my gosh. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Joe, that's you coming back on on eight, five, six. Yes, it is. Okay. Awesome. Thank you. And there was one additional witness who wanted to speak. Well, that was so Kara is on Kara. Did you have anything you wanted to add? She works for the parks department. Okay. No, thank you. I'm here as the witness. Okay. So if we have questions that, that you needed to answer. Thank you both. Any additional questions for either Alec or Kara. From the board. Yeah, go ahead, Catherine. Thank you. There wasn't too much in the application around the nature of the interpretive signage and that kind of user experience, especially around the ecological features and especially we're here talking about the vernal pools. So it'd be great if you're able to share anything around. The interpretive signage and high level that might help us understand the project even more. Yeah. So the, the interpretive signage is designed around the woodland, wetland, wildland book. If you're familiar with that, it's sort of the textbook for natural communities that's put out by. And our, they just released their second edition last year. And it basically catalogs all of the natural communities in Vermont. And our trail has those three categories. There's five signs per category. And then there's a fourth category that has to do with park history. So. There should be about 20 signs along the route. They'll be placed, you know, per the guidelines and accessible trail buildings that they can be viewed by, by everybody and everybody. And on each sign is, you know, interpretive material. And then also every sign has a, you know, some element of Beniki language and history on it just to leave in the natural history and the, the, and the human history together. So those signs are almost all done. We've been sort of doing the, the signage and the trail part in, in parallel. Yeah. Kind of just one of those things that we can't, we can ask about it. Well, I mean, you can ask about it, but it's not something that we can really regulate for municipal services. So. It's for view off of the parcel. Then that's considered a little more actual sign versus interpretive. Guidance. Right. So it's more of a guidance thing versus if we have regulations about. Size and height and location of actual commercial signs. Those we could regulate. Okay. Okay. Okay. Interesting nonetheless. Hear about the signers. The project. It is. It is. I wasn't. Yeah. I wasn't interrupting the question, but I was like, we don't actually need that for the approval. So it really seems like that the main issue before this. The DRB is whether the project meets the no undue adverse impact. And so I wonder if any member of the board to have any kind of initial thoughts on that. I mean, based on what this testimony and what's included in the, in the staff report. I am not reading any. Undue. Adverse impact. I'm wondering if others are as well or would have more questions about that. I don't think it's necessary. I think we could just go with a motion. Okay. And that's Joe. How do you feel about, did you have any questions about the wetlands criteria? Or the vernal pool criteria? No, I think I'm all set. Okay. All right. Well, that was going to be my second question. If we wanted to do deliberative session on this or not. I don't think it's necessary. You don't think. I think we could just go with a motion. Okay. And that's Joe. How do you feel about, did you have any questions about the wetlands criteria? Okay. All right. Well, then that case. Yes. I will entertain a motion. On this application. The actual motion for approval. Motion to approve. Yes. And so the language is, there's a suggestion in the staff report. On page 11. Of the staff report. Yeah. So. The motion to grant the minor set plan approval for a universally accessible trail inside Hubbard Park. Including granted the requested. Three zero zero six D waiver for disturbance inside vernal pool buffer zones as presented in this application. And supporting and supplemental materials. Okay. Thank you, Jean. Second by Sharon. Okay. So how do you vote, Joe? Yeah. Jean. Yes. Sharon. Yes. Catherine. Yes. And I vote yes as well. So, so thank you all. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you to the decision as soon as possible. And because there were no. Conditions of approval. We'll be able to issue the zoning permit. As soon as I get a decision signed by the acting chair. So get to you as soon as we can. Great. Thank you. Thank you all for your time. Thank you. Okay. Great. Thanks everyone. So we'll be moving on to our second application. Okay. So we'll have. 579 Gallison Hill Road. The applicant, Mary Francis McClellan. But this is a final review of a three lot subdivision. And we had a sketch plan review on this. Month ago. Okay. All right. So. was, you know, this is something we've already seen. And so if there's just highlight any changes, maybe that might have changed, things that might have changed since we first saw it. So as you said, this is a final review of a three lot subdivision. So the board is at this point passed with actually making a decision on it. There's really not much of anything that has changed other than that additional information has been provided, especially in the areas that the board had requested that information on before. So the board will need to make a, the semi-formal determination about which are the side and front parcel boundaries for the parcels A and B, proposed parcels A and B because that did fall into some of the other determinations. And then the two of the areas where there's some supplemental information are about the driveway locations, the potential for driveway locations and whether or not the parcels should have individual driveways or a shared driveway. So there's additional information in here about the applicant's choice, as well as some additional information about the mitigating impacts on a natural community that's down in one of the far corners of one of the proposed parcels. And then the board's also gonna need to make a determination about whether or not to impose any landscaping requirements on future zoning permits. We've done that before in some of these small subdivisions. It's just one of those items that the board's gonna need to call out. But there's no big changes to the actual plan from the sketch. Okay, thanks, Meredith. And we've got, I think just the two witnesses to swear in. So John and our engineer from DeWolf and the applicant, Mary McClellan. All right, great. So I'll go ahead and swear you in. So do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? Yes. I do. Okay, great. So who would like to lead us off in an overview? If you're okay, I'll take the lead here, Mary. Thank you so much. Okay, and I guess I'll share my screen if that's okay with folks. Sure. Awesome. So here is the proposed subdivision plan and it actually maybe, I wanna start with the larger view showing in the area. So here's the existing 1.74 acre parcel. This is the existing home that Mary lives in right now. And so the proposal is to break it into three properties with one on the left and one on the right of the existing parcel. And it is the residential 9,000 district and I think the smallest lot is this parcel C, which is 13,000 some odd square feet, which is basically one and a half times the minimum lot area, whereas these lots are substantially larger than that. And it's subdivided in this way to allow for building on a nice level area and for each potential lot. There are steeper areas around the side of this lot here and it gets quite steep in the back. And this corner, this reddish area is mapped on the city of Montpelier natural communities map. And you can see that it just nicks this corner, this acute corner of this eastern lot. And so, but this is in an area that would, it's undevelopable, it's outside of the, or it's within the setback lines. So there and it's a steep area, so it could not be developed. The one thing that I wanted to mention is that Meredith said that there were very few changes to the, from the sketch plan. And that's true in that I don't believe that the boundaries of the lots have changed at all. They're exactly as they were on the sketch plans in the middle. The only thing that I've changed here is the setback lines. And I am showing the setback lines per the discussion that was had at sketch plan. And this, so I am showing this as a side setback 10 feet. And that was something which Meredith noted is up for the board to make a determination on. The other, I guess the requested additional information was regarding the driveways. And so we have, we've looked at the driveways for each lot. And this, these dashed lines, I'm showing like a potential driveway, which could be developed on, say on this parcel A. And this, I have looked at the profile grade as well as the required cut and fill that would all be able to be developed entirely on this parcel. And it would meet the city of Montpellier driveway standards as well as the state of Vermont B 71 residential driveway standard. And the same goes for the driveway that, which is shown approaching a building area on parcel B. At sketch plan, there was comment about that shared driveways are encouraged that they're not required by the board, but they are encouraged. And so they wanted us to look at it and just determine why we're proposing separate driveways as opposed to having a shared driveway. And so, if you look at the topography of, I assume in this way, yes. If you look at the topography in this area of this part and this proposed parcel, it is quite steep. And this is an existing driveway, which comes out of the, this porch area. And that's extremely steep. So the proposal here is to abandon this steep driveway and allow for the purchaser of this property to develop to develop a more reasonable approaching driveway. And so we think that it would be difficult to create a driveway here, which would be shared and not have some steep portion to it. And if we look at that, this is the existing driveway, which we're recommending being just maintained as is as the driveway for parcel C, the existing home. And we're showing this driveway potential location for this parcel B. Anyway, so if this were to be the shared driveway, then the potential resident parcel B would end up being driving quite close to the existing home. So that seems to be not a desirable approach for a shared driveway. And so, it just seems that if you were going to develop another driveway here, it might as well be a separate driveway for the final parcel, as opposed to having like abolishing this and making this a shared driveway seemed like that would be like, you'd lose, the benefit of each resident having their own driveway that they don't have to enter into any kind of maintenance agreements or come to agreements about who's responsible for plowing. And it seems that it is allowed in the rules to have separate driveways for each lot. And it seems to be the most sensible solution to this proposed three-lot subdivision. And I guess with that, I'll stop talking unless I have any questions for you. I have a question on the adjacent to parcel B. Do you have a, is there any existing landscape buffer there through the property line? So maybe it'd be best to look at the ortho photo, which I have here. Thank you. Sure. So, you can see, this is a treeed area here in the front, you know, or near Gallison Hill Road, whereas there is, at least at the time of this ortho photo is this, it's, there are some other, looks like there's some other trees here and down the slope there, but there is a fairly large clearing here on this lot. And then there are over on this side, there are some, this is treeed as well. Does that answer your question? Yes. Thank you. Okay. All right, other questions from the board for John? Just go ahead, Sharon. Just one quick question. Is the driveway on lot A, is that on the existing curb cut? The existing curb cut for lot A is here in this finer line and then crosshatched there as a proposed to be abandoned. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Other questions? So I just kind of going to the issues that Meredith outlined seems like the first one is around the side, the side boundaries. Yeah. And so I think, you know, the question is really, does the board agree that the, you know, the property lines closest to the barn on parcel A are side boundaries? Yeah. And then parcel A and then the similar bent lines on parcel C. Okay. Or B, sorry. A and B because C is the one in the middle. Yeah. So, okay. I get confused as well. Yeah. My thinking when I reviewed that was that in as much as possible, we should try to use frontage as orientation. And so each one of those properties have a certain amount of frontage required. So that makes other things the side. Yeah. Okay. So I'm hearing Sharon say, yes, I can have agrees with this, the staff recommendation. And I see it similarly. Does anybody on the board have a contrary view? Okay. Driveway locations. Any thoughts, concerns, questions from the board on those? John, I thought your description of, and kind of the laying out the reasoning behind each of them was useful. So thank you for that. Thank you. Any, any, any other questions from the board? No. Okay. And then the last question is around landscaping. Is that, is that right, Meredith? So we need to look at, am I missing any? I'm just, I'm just getting through to make sure. So landscaping and then the board will need to actually just make, you know, confirm their determination about the natural resources. So those two things are the ones left. Okay. The landscaping, because that's a condition item and then just confirm the that the project either has been designed to avoid or minimize and mitigate adverse impacts to the natural resource area. All right. So those two items. So let's take the landscaping first. So I'm looking at page, let's see, what page are we on? Page 14? 13. 13. Okay. It starts on page 13. Yeah. Okay. So can I ask Meredith a question about those? Yes, go ahead. I just want to make sure that I understand this correctly. That if there are, if those are single family units that are put up there, they won't come under any further review. Correct. If it was anything but single family unit. So anything except for single or two dwelling units. So it could be two dwelling units in separate or a duplex, what everybody thinks of as a duplex, that's also does not trigger site plan review. So does not trigger further landscaping and screening evaluation. Okay. So basically if we don't insist on landscaping now, we wouldn't have a chance to. Unless it is over two units. Yep. Which my way of thinking doesn't seem horrible, but. That doesn't seem horrible to condition landscaping. No, it seems reasonable. You know. I'm getting caught up in the double negative. So Jean, are you saying it seems reasonable to condition landscaping? No, I'm agreeing with that. You agree with Sharon? That it doesn't seem reasonable. Yeah. That it doesn't seem required. Okay. I agree too. Okay. Yeah. It's not like the one we had down on. I know that one. In the meadow. In the meadow. Well, there's Ewing and there's also another one. There was one in the meadow that was pre, I don't think, I don't think any of you are on the board when we first started doing this, there was a, one of the first two parcel subdivisions that got triggered under these, these regs where it was in the meadow. And it was going to be, so the lot size, minimum lot size is really small and it was going to be two dwelling units really close to each other on two different parcels. And it, it, the board at that point said, we want to make sure when you actually come back with your house site plan for the, what's currently going to be a vacant parcel that some kind of landscaping gets triggered. But that was for that specific instance. These are much bigger parcels, yeah. Okay. So I'm hearing that we're not interested in having that condition. Okay. And then natural resources and attempts to avoid disturbance. Based on the map that you provided and the teeny tiny corner, it does seem as if you've, you've designed it in a way that does avoid. Yeah. So no concern. You literally try to build in that corner, right? Yeah. You can't build in that little teeny tiny corner. So. Maybe somebody could put a deer stand at most. Like that would be it. Okay. Okay. All right. So any other questions from the board for John or for Mary? No. Okay. How does the board feel about deliberative session on this or doing, taking a, I'll take a motion if we don't want to do that. No, I was just going to say just a reminder, it looks like we, so the, on page 16 and 17 of the staff report is a draft motion and we would just get rid of the first condition. We'd still need the second condition, but that's it. Okay. All right. So I'm not hearing any strong desire to go into deliberative session on this. So I will take a motion on this application. So moved. The motion to approve application number Z-2069. Oh, we lost Eugene. I think your microphone shut out. For the parcel subdivision of 579, Gannison Hill Road as presented in the application submitted on June 21st of 2022 and supporting materials subject to the following conditions of approval. Within 180 days of this decision, applicants shall record the final survey plan in the Montpellier Land Records Office. Her, the procedures detailed in 4405 of the zoning regulations, including the locations of all applicable survey rods and markers. Seconded. All right. Thanks, Joe. Okay. So Sharon, how do you vote? I'm favorite. Catherine? Yes. Joe? Yes. Gene? Yes. And I vote S as well. Great. So thank you, everybody. So Mary, John, similar to the fryer because there's no conditions for getting the permit once we've got the decision written and signed off by the acting chair, we'll be able to issue the decision and the zoning permit on the same day. And then when you have the final plat ready, I will need the mylar for that. And I will coordinate getting Abby, the chair signature on that mylar. And then I will submit it upstairs in the clerk's office to be recorded. Those recording fees were already paid as part of the application fee for this permit. Okay. Thank you very much, folks. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you, board. Okay. So that concludes our meeting. When is the next meeting of this board? That somehow didn't get put on here. Normally it's on the agenda. The next meeting is Monday, August 1st. And we do have application for that. We actually have items for both the August 1st and the August 15th meeting. So there will be no resting on laurels for the next few meetings. Okay. And August 1st is also the date that we go through the formal process of electing chairs and vice chairs for the annual positions, just so that everybody's aware. Okay. All right. So with that, I will take a motion to adjourn. So second. All right. I heard Sharon, then I heard Joe. So thank you. Gene, how do you vote? Yes. Joe? Yes. Sharon? Yeah. Catherine? Yes. And I vote yes as well. So thanks, everybody. Meeting is adjourned.