 I thought it was pretty well done, I thought it was fairly useful, it was concise enough. How are you Andrew? Thank you. One more person says, well, we needed the ring. Maybe it's your fault. We're just waiting for Mark and we'll start. Mark told me that he will not have video tonight. Okay. Will he be, he won't even be able to see our videos? Yes he will. Okay. Make sure to not let you leave the party. Which trip? Didn't you go away immediately after our last meeting? I've gone away a lot. I'm coming for you. I don't remember. I probably did. I'm leaving tomorrow morning to go on a kayaking thing down south and then I'm leaving Monday for the Cape. How down south? No, it shouldn't do. Okay. I come and go a lot, but thank you for asking. Is Mark on yet? Looks like Mark is here and Mark, can you hear us and can we hear you? Mark, can you hear us and can we hear you? I can hear you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thanks. Okay. Okay, great. Okay, let's kick this off. Good evening and welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board for July 18th, 2023. I'm Dawn Filbert. I'm the chair of the DRB and with me are fellow board members Frank Cokman, John Muscatelli, and on the phone is Mark Baer and our staff people Marlekeen and Marty Gillies. Welcome. This meeting is being recorded. There are a number of ways to participate in the meeting. You can participate virtually or in person by coming to the auditorium or you can call in as Mark is doing. In any event, it's important that you sign in and are documented as a participant in the meeting and you can do that here at the sign up sheet in the back of the room. Or you can sign up and provide your contact information in the chat box or you can send Marlekeen an email at M-K-E-E-N-E at southburlington-V-T dot gov. It's important that you register your participation to be considered a participant should you want to take any future action. Let's start with emergency evacuation procedures. Did I by the way say this is being recorded? I think I did. Yeah. Okay. In the event of an emergency, there are doors in the back of each corner of the auditorium here and you would simply exit those doors and turn right or left and go outside. Are there additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items? There are not. Okay. Any announcements or reminders? I guess I would ask how is the council doing recruiting another member for our board? Oh, shoot. I asked for an update on Thursday or so last week and I forgot to ask for an update today so I don't have an update. Okay. I apologize. Thank you. That's okay. Are there any comments and questions from the public that are not related to the agenda? Hearing none, we will proceed with our review. Item number five on the agenda is a Final Plot application SD 2310 of O'Brien Farm Road, LLC for the next phase of the previously approved master plan for up to 490 dwelling units and non-residential spaces as allowable in the zoning district. The phase consists of two five-story multi-family building, multi-family residential buildings on lots 13 and 15 with a total of 251 dwelling units, 1,219 square feet of commercial space and associated site improvements at 255 Kennedy Drive. Who is here for the applicant? Hello, Evan. Thank you. Andrew Gill with O'Brien Brothers. Do I need to swear? Yes. New application. Because that's right. That's a new application. Okay. Raise your right hand, please. That you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury. Yes. Thank you. So this is an application that we have seen before and it comes to us with a staff report that's identical to the one that was issued previously and I'm going to let Marla describe why we're having you come back and reapply for this project. Okay. So the... Evan, I don't think your mic is on. Just putting that out there. This project was approved in July of last year. There was a condition that required the plans to be recorded, the approved plots to be recorded by 180 days from that decision. That was not done in a timely manner and so it expired. An expired application is an application that never happened. That means that they have submitted a complete new set of plans, complete new set of documents. And the only reason it looks similar to what was reviewed before is because I had the benefit of knowing how you responded to all the issues that were presented at the previous hearing. All things are still on the table if you would like them to be, if the applicant would like them to be. But the applicant and their cover letter for this application indicated that they were happy with the decision and wanted it to be the same. I did prepare... There are some modifications just to update the phrasing was versus is and that sort of thing. I saved a red line copy because I know you're going to want it. Sounds great. I think that's it. Great. Thanks Marla. So I guess the question is, let me first turn to Evan and Andrew. Sorry. Do you have anything to add to what Marla just said or for us to understand before we discuss this as a board? No, it really was just a clear clear. And I think we had a lot of balls in the air with the other phase of the project going on. So just something that slipped under the radar. Understandable. Okay. It was my radar to be clear. So it was on me in his defense. He had a lot of things going on. But I will say I think the permit had originally been issued with a three year timeline to get a zoning permit to start the project. And so I think it's important that that's the reason why we sort of weren't paying close attention to the sort of minutiae of the details. I think this condition was on page 36 or 37 of a permit we worked on for a few years. So I would ask, were there any choice words uttered when you discovered this? It wasn't a good night for me. All right, let me turn to the board and ask if they have any issues, any questions that you'd like to ask before we proceed. The only question I have is, since this is a new application, are there any new LDR requirements, anything that was passed since this that now are in effect that weren't considered? Yeah, that's a great question. This project had a separate preliminary and final plot approval. Preliminary plot is when you get vesting with the set of regulations that weren't in effect at the time of preliminary. So because the preliminary plot did not expire, and that's kind of explained on the bottom of page one and page two of the packet, that the new regulations do not apply. Good question, though. So I can't say I recall it, but I just heard it that the original authorization required a three year build out or three years to commence. To commence. Is there any reason we can't hold you to that original three years starting from last year? I think that the draft does that, but we were happy with the timeline we had originally. So we're not looking to extend that. Okay, not looking to move it back. No, good. Another good question. Any other questions? Mark, do you have anything to ask? No, only that I've been in Andrew's shoes before, so I fully empathize with the lack of sleep he probably had, and it happened. Nothing is as good as a clerical thing. I don't see any issues with that. Sure. Okay. Closing this and moving forward. So what is it we need to vote to close the hearing and then we will deliver? Don't forget to take public comment. Thank you. Yes, of course. And I'm sorry. I forgot to mention at the beginning of this that I own a condominium in your development in Hillside, but I don't believe that has ever or ever will. Made me biased in any way. And I, if anyone disagrees, please feel free to raise your, raise your hand and speak, but. So, okay, let's, let's ask if there are any public members who want to make comments. Is anyone here in the audience interested in making a comment? And is there anyone online, Marty? No. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. If I'm hearing none, I would entertain a motion to close the hearing. I'll move that we close the hearing. Second. Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor of closing the hearing say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? No. I think. I think we're good. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate you making that short and sweet, painless. I'm sure we'll be seeing you guys soon. you too. Okay number six on the agenda conditional use application CU2301 of Castantino and Manning to construct a two-story addition to an existing single family home. The addition is proposed to be set back three feet two and a half inches from the side lot line at 11 white place. I need to find my copy here. Who's here for the applicant please? Ryan Manning. Ryan Manning's wife Maddie's Manning is also on the line. I'm dialed in. Okay thank you. And Missa Aloisi architect. Your name again? Missa Aloisi. Anyone else? Okay I'm going to ask you to raise your right hand. I'm gonna swear you in. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. So thank you for coming and just tell you a little bit about the process. We have a staff report that we've all read and I'm sure you've read as well. And what we do during these hearings is we go through the staff report and we focus on the comments that staff have made that typically appear in red and we raise them ask questions of you and maybe have a discussion if that's necessary. So let's go ahead and get started. Are there any disclosures or conflicts of interest? Yes. I have a comment if there's no disclosures. No I don't hear any. So I made a mistake in warning the hearing. I noted it on the first page of text. I read the plans incorrectly and the proposed setback is in fact 3 feet nothing not 3 feet 2 and a half inches from the sideline. Typically the board would keep open a meeting that was improperly warned since this was an error on my part and not an error you know or change from the applicant. I would consider it to be a minor change and welcome you to just proceed as you always would but if you'd like to keep it open for the purposes of allowing you know additional public comment because I accidentally said 3 feet 2 and a half inches you're welcome to do so. It seems pretty inconsequential to me. I don't know what the rest of you think. Yeah okay so let's proceed. Thank you Marla. Would you like to make any opening comments? Well I just the that 3 foot 2 and a half it's like there's 3 foot 3 foot 2 and a half 3 foot 4 it varies along that hole so you're partially correct. Thank you. Do you have any opening comments you'd like to make? I guess the the premise of the this whole addition and everything is you know 10 months ago is in an accident and we're just trying to make our house a little bit more accessible. Okay that's kind of where we're starting from so most of this is out of necessity to get around the house. Yeah. Okay thank you for telling us that. Okay let's start with the first comment. We need we need a description please of the height construction and use let's see external stair encroachment and the plans need to be modified to more clearly more clearly portray that. Yeah the stair that's to the west on the porch is that the stair here? Let me read the comment. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to describe the height construction and use of the proposed external stair encroachment on the west and to modify the plans to more clearly identify this feature. Once this information is provided staff recommends the board consider the impacts of the proposed rest west encroachment in terms of this criterion. So this is about there's a side step back of five feet for this lot and the board can reduce it down to three feet with conditionally used review and the application really focused on the east encroachment of the new building addition but that appears from the plans is also an encroachment on the west it looks like maybe a landing in stairs but there's really no information provided about what that is and Marty is pointing to it on the screen there. Right so that stair that leads down to the basement the hopes is that they're gonna have accessible livable space. Could you speak up please and make sure the mic is on maybe definitely on let me just come closer or I can't move it. There we go. Is that better? This is South Burlington. Yeah so that stairs to get access individual access down into the basement where there'll be partially finished basement there so that way that that provides a means of egress out of that space. Does it have what happens at the top of the stairs? Is it an enclosed space? I guess is it an enclosed space period or is it sort of like a bulkhead external there situation? It's like a bulkhead external stair. Yeah it's just an open stair that leads down to the basement. We could put a roof over it if necessary. Any board questions beyond that? Just a little bit of curiosity if it's just an open stairwell so it lends itself to snow accumulation. Right that's what we were talking about. At the bottom we could have a trend strain some sort that would handle the water capture. So if you wanted to change it to have a roof on it I guess this is a question I have for Marty and it's an say the board improves this. It's an approved encroachment without a roof on it if they wanted to put a roof on it would they need to come back to the board? I couldn't say for sure not to top my head but I don't think so. I'm not positive without doing some research. So it seems like moving forward it would make more sense to have a roof on it to avoid coming back but if for some for some reason budget cuts it was not feasible financially to do it then we could remove it but the sort of the more stringent way to move forward is with roof is that? Right and of course then a roof is sort of a greater visual impact so the board would want to evaluate whether it's an undue adverse impact on the neighbors as has set up to been reviewed for both both sides of the building. You're absolutely correct it would be the more conservative way to permanent. Is there any foliage along that sideline? What's there? Currently there's just a low a low garden. Just a low low flower garden on the outside of it. A low garden. Just a low garden right now. Yours or the neighbors? Ours. It's it's there's a strip of grass lawn that's ours and then a garden that sits up against the house that's currently there. There's nothing there's no bushes or plants or anything there. No trees. What do your neighbors think about this? They're they're in favor they're they're fully supportive of it. Okay thank you. Any other questions before we move on? Marla once I would just note only because it's the elevations are showing the railings around the deck and the ramp and stuff like that that the access there to the basement would require railing around the the bulkhead portion of it just for fall protection. Similar to what you have around the decks and stuff like that. Just from a visual impact standpoint. Okay so would that be a condition? Mark? Well it's a design shift. I mean it's basically you can visualize it's gonna be the same thing there and I don't know the condition because it's a building code issue that we don't really I'm just more making it as a comment. I think because it's a conditional use. Yeah because it's conventional use and it's becoming more of an impact we're not going to approve the roof you know and we're just approving it as is. It definitely needs a railing and I'll make that as a condition. Okay so I guess I would ask the applicant then would you like we're gonna have to so what when there's a conditional approval the condition has to be specific enough that any average person could understand what the condition means so I think it's possible to write a condition that says you know shall be enclosed by a roof no more than you know normal shed height or seven feet high or something like that. It doesn't need to be that high Marla only because you've got you know you're stepping down. Yeah we would try to put it underneath the windows honestly. Yeah yeah yeah. Okay so a slanted roof at no higher than the windows and covering no more than the stair and that would be and should the applicant choose to not have a roof the stair would be equipped with a railing. Yeah because it's a more than a 30 inch from the grade below so protection would also wouldn't be an enclosed roof it'd be just like a overhang. Yeah okay is that a condition you can live with? Yes okay okay great thanks. Okay comment number two staff recommends the board asked the applicant to clarify the proposed use of the east one story addition. So the the idea behind that the east one story is to give me a space where instead of rolling up the ramp in the front would be a ground level grade level entry into the house that would then be able to roll in and get into the house that way so that I didn't have to truck up a ramp every single time. Okay make it a little bit more independent for for me getting in and out of the house. Okay so not a garage. Well the garage portion would be that would be not heated space for exercise equipment, bike storage it would be used as a sort of a walk-through entry into what would be the back addition which is a mudroom which houses also an elevator in that space so that way it's an on-grade entry but the the part that's a garage is really it you can't fit a car in there but it is outdoor shed storage space that makes sense. Shouldn't we have a plan that relabels it? Yeah I would do that as a condition. So what would you like me to call it instead of a garage storage or I mean it's enclosed but it's like a garage but and it has a garage door but it's a forefoot. It's basically a toy garage. It's basically a toy garage. I mean it's going to be where Ryan keeps his bike. I mean it's what we use our garage currently for. It's more like a shed. It's not heated. It's not heated. No. It's not going to be heated. Correct. Then just call it an unheated storage. Unheated storage. Okay thank you. Three. Number three is about the width of the driveway. The idea is to reconfigure the stairs to provide at least nine feet of driveway width to meet this criterion. Can that be done? Yeah the stair to the east we would either push it back or remove it all together. That would be a discussion that but the one yeah so the one that leads out to the driveway there that that would be either pushed back or removed all together. Yeah so again conditions have to be specific so you kind of need to pick one but we could continue the hearing. This doesn't have to be the only time we see you when you could tell us what you want in the next two weeks and then we could just have a quick you know five-minute conversation. Right we could revise the plans and show them and then yeah so so you'll get back to us on that. Go ahead you have do you have thoughts on that or yeah I mean I'd be okay with with taking the stairs from those stairs on the east side completely out to make the space. Okay thanks. Oops okay the next question is number four we need a survey by a licensed surveyor. This is for the property bounds. Yes so because we currently have the along the east side the neighbor has that was done by a licensed surveyor that shows the garage location so it has the existing property line that's to the east but the other three property lines are of course are not on that survey but you're requesting that the other three done be done by a licensed surveyor. Yes correct that is the requirement. Yes yeah okay we'll hire that same surveyor to complete the other three lines. Thank you so much. Yeah number five let me read this excluding the ramp there was still 205 square feet more lot coverage that is permissible in this zoning district. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to modify the plans pardon me to remove at least 205 square feet of lot coverage in order to meet the maximum lot coverage of 50% the applicant could also ask their licensed surveyor to confirm the reported lot size. I think we'll start with finding out what the size is some questions that I do have for you though is that requirement I saw there if it's less than 5,000 square feet so if we're 4,999 we can be at 60% and not 50% and I think the reason the we could cut more square footage off and the questions I have are the patio space in particular or the other hard surfaces for Ryan to be able to have access to his yard which normally we're one one square foot away from having 500 more square feet so is there any leniency that the board would take given the conditions of the applicant to have access to the yard or is there some condition put on the patio space where there is permeable pavement pavement and that such and those sorts of things to mediate stormwater. I think it's premature to address that question until we've seen the official survey. Why is that Frank? Well I think you're on I think you're on a slippery slope you know the percentage is arbitrary there's no doubt about that you know 51% 49% 49.8% but it's there. Yeah, this is Ryan's wife I just want to add a little bit more context I I think if if you don't know someone or in a wheelchair with Ryan's injury level it might not be clear but currently Ryan cannot access our backyard which means he can't be in our backyard without assistance to watch our children play and so that is the goal of that patio is to incorporate Ryan into our everyday life as he should be. And I think no one's asking you to eliminate the patio. So I think information that would be helpful for me is you know moving forward if we're coming back with plans if we have a survey done and they say you're 5,001 square feet would you accept a submission of permeable pavement to mediate that overage or if we're under then it's a non-issue but moving forward if we are over then is there any sort of road forward in in getting an overage. Marla I'm gonna turn to you for I I'm still with with the I don't want to answer the hypothetical. Okay. We'll address it when we have to. I think that Frank's point is helpful. Does it make it hard for them to plan though? Go ahead Marks say what you wanted to say. I was just going to say Frank that you know I I I feel that if what the applicant asking is some if then scenarios if they they do the survey and it comes in at 4,999 it's a moot point by regulation they're allowed that extra amount of footage and they can make it bigger you know to make some additional accessible areas if they're over by a one foot you know or two feet or whatever it is what they're asking is is there anything in the board's purview that would allow them to provide at the next hearing something like permeable pavers or you know something that you know doesn't go to stormwater runoff but might still add lot coverage you know that we can that we have the authority to wave or allow and if we do with the board be acceptable if something like that comes before grant we can't make a decision so we see it but I I see where they're coming from. I don't think the board has the authority to do that frankly because this is not a site plan by debt by state law single family home is not a site plan and therefore the waiver authority available to the board in the case of a site plan is not available building coverage is not actually about stormwater building coverage is about the perception of how much is on a lot right so if you were able to find something that was a stabilized surface but still had the appearance of a lawn you know that would reduce lot coverage rather than going the other way that had the had the function of permeable but the appearance of impermeable that would not be allowed but if had the appearance of grass it had the appearance of not hard surface but was a hard surface that would not count just to throw hypotheticals out there so if we came back and send our official grass that's over a stabilized area that is a rollable surface I don't think the board's been asked that question before so he'd be asking for a new determination so that gets into the really hypothetical I'd love to hear you come back with something that's a little more you know enjoyable than artificial grass over concrete but it's sort of an in-between it meets the stormwater and it's and it's a non-maintenance and it mitigates the impact of concrete so as Frank said you know get the survey if you come on in under 5,000 square feet you're you're good to go if you come in over 5,000 square feet happy to have another conversation brainstorm with you about what things might work but you know I can speak to the board's precedent but I can't make the decision for the board so it is going to be ultimately up to them if you want to get creative with it instead of just removing that area I can't imagine and I know I can't speak for the board but I can't imagine that we won't do everything we can within our authority to allow you to access to your backyard to be with your children out there your human beings and we are somewhat compassionate although not everyone sees us that way but so let's see what you come up with okay thank you number six this is staff recommends the board require the applicant to remove the roof over the ramp landing so that it does not appear to be part of the porch yeah do you want to put the elevation up there so it's covering the portion of the ramp right now and you're asking to just exclude that portion of the roof over the ramp only is that correct yes and do you understand why yeah I do understand okay great thank you and I think that's the end of our comments our staff comments so I think it's pretty clear we are going to conclude tonight's hearing but we're not going to close it we'll stay open until what would be the date for them to come back Marla well so we can we have space we are meeting the board is meeting on August 1st and September 6th are the next two meetings do you think September 6th is too soon for you to get a survey I don't think so I think that you know well because it's only a property bounds it's not a complicated survey so I would recommend September 6th and it is a Wednesday because Monday's Labor Day okay so we get all screwed up when there's Monday okay and I would entertain a motion to continue this hearing to September 6th 2023 so moved thank you you got you have a public comment oh yes I'm sorry I'm sorry I think I might have a solution for him if it's stop please who are you okay if let's assume it's 5,000 which is what the plan says so it's 5050 whether it's gonna come in right right it comes in lower they're fine it comes in higher hey David can you use the mic sorry we're getting hand signals from the back of the room that you're not getting picked up push the button so it turns bright green they're reporting it at 5,000 square feet so let's assume it's 5050 chance that's higher or lower if it's lower they're fine if they're higher they're asking for a favor regulations are by the use not the user so it's night you know once it comes down to it so to get them to that 60,000 if they get the surveyor that did the neighbor's property and it comes in at 5,010 square feet do a boundary line adjustment give them 11 square feet and get to the 60% so they have a they have a good option to get to the 60% if they want to employ it thank you are there any other members of the public who would like to comment any other comment yep so my name is Mike McGinnis I'm the owner of 13 white place their adjacent neighbor to the east go ahead to my they're to my west you know we're fully in favor of this proposal they've been exceptional neighbors obviously you know Ryan's accident has impacted their life and this you know proposal they've worked with us you know and kept us in the loop the whole time so we are fully supportive of the proposal okay thank you for your comments are there any other members of the public who would like to comment okay hearing none now I would entertain a motion to continue this hearing move to continue till September 6th thank you second second thank you any discussion all in favor of continuing this hearing to September 6 say aye aye opposed aye we will see you back here in September see you in September as a song goes great thank you thank you good luck number seven continued final plat application SD 2308 of rivers edge building development LLC for the 3.6 acre Park Road area phase of a previously approved master plan for a 450 acre golf course and my pristine cut off I can keep reading and go ahead thank you the 3.8 acre Park Road area phase of a previously approved master plan for a 450 acre golf course and a 354 unit residential development the planned unit development consists of consolidating three existing lots for the purpose of constructing 14 dwelling units in two family homes on two private roads at 1170 and 1180 Dorset Street thank you Marlar so I when I look at this there are no staff comments and I think the reason we've asked you back is to see if there's any other questions that the board has I know we had a lot of discussion at your last time you were here and so let me just first of all is this a continue yes it's I think David wasn't here last time though I was okay yeah so is he sworn in if this is continued I was okay all right so let me let me is there anything you want to say before I ask board members for comments no I think you you've hit it on the head there was there was a couple things to follow up on we followed up with staff staff's report reflects that those follow-ups were satisfactory the one thing in the staff report that has come since the staff report was public works was concerned that the plans show a easement over the existing pump station so there's an existing pump station never connected for what that previous layout was that easement showed on the file plot by another consultant but it never got executed so it's not an easement public works doesn't want it I think the best way is to remove it from our plat because it was never executed and that pump station is not part of this proposal okay so I think that was the one thing hanging I think there are a couple members in the audience that had question on landscaping last time we met the we met the standard of the 3% with the previous landscape plan three white pines Mike Lawrence was asked to look at the plan again he added three white pines behind unit 5 6 and he added three white pines to the side of unit 14 so the it went up another $2,400 or so above what it was thank you are there any questions from board members or comments just one quick one sorry go ahead mark okay this is the one where we were going to get a we're gonna either have further discussion or additional information on a blasting plan was that submitted to for for staff review and part of the record it was yeah they submitted a blasting plan as brother materials okay main main drilling and blasting did the blasting plan yeah okay yeah okay good question mark any other comments or questions yeah we're just gonna bring up that the I believe that Tom the Petro head of DPW was amenable to the conditions that Brian was proposing in regard to the the plat that nobody wants or the easement that nobody wants and we were running that by legal to make sure that everything was watertight on that one and we have not yet heard back from legal on the review of Brian's proposed language on the plat so that's why it's left is kind of an open thing on this report so we're okay with any outcome Brian's wasn't actually a proposed language it was a reply but it wasn't necessarily proposed language talking with Brian today I believe the best way to move forward is for us to remove the easement because again it was a proposed easement that does show on the long ago filed plat but there was never a signed document with the city the city doesn't want the easement this the easement does not exist because there was not a signed document that the plan can show an easement or anything like that but it's the signed document that creates it and it you know so I don't think legal is going to have a problem with that we're okay with any condition that the board ends up subject to legal but our suggestion at this point is remove it okay are there any members of the public who want to comment anyone online I'm not seeing anyone online who would like to comment so are the do we need to continue this or can we close it sorry Marty I suppose we could close it and then do conditional approval okay for the I'll do a draft FFT and we can maybe review that in a little bit of session at a future meeting good so would someone like to propose that we close this hearing so I'll make a motion that we close FD 2308 all right with someone like to second it second all right thanks I'll in any discussion I'll in favor of closing the hearing say aye opposed thank you thank you sorry I should never say that we are ahead of schedule knock on what let me just get rid of this so we can also fall back on our enrolled that we don't spend more than an hour on an agenda item because if we can't resolve them in an hour we're starting to lose attention well let's cross that bridge if we come to it okay Jen you're back welcome back how was Spain Spain Portugal Italy I'm trying to find this bear with me for a second how was it traveling in the Mediterranean with small children excellent I think we're ready for you I'm just trying to find my document here traveling with teenagers has itself yeah challenges they weren't as excited as we were really where position rolling of the eyes just the normal teenage stuff mm-hmm sorry I'm trying to find it here I'll get it afterwards okay kid thank you continued preliminary and final plat application SD 2305 of Gary Bourne to create a general planned unit development by resubdividing three existing lots into three new lots of point one eight acres lot one point one four acres lot two and one point oh six acres lot three and constructing a three thousand three hundred fifty square foot financial institution outlawed one a six thousand four hundred eighty square foot two-story mixed commercial and residential building on lot two and a three-story twenty-seven unit multifamily building on lot three at seven hundred sixty Shelburne Road who is here for the applicant I'm Jen does it tell with Trudell consulting engineers and Gary Bourne welcome back you have some folks online potentially do you have who the what members of your team are online I think I see Kelly is part of our team okay anyone else Kelly and you've all been sworn in I think okay yes so while I look for my document on my computer is there anything you'd like to start by responding to staff report or I'm happy to answer the staff comments one by one as they come up but I would like to thank this board for hearing us as we wrap up this project I know it's been a long road but I think we are nearing the end and hopefully despite Mark's fears we don't run over an hour okay I'm gonna hold you to it so let's let's quickly go through the comments comment number what first of all are there any disclosures or recusals okay comment number one it's it's about reviewing the revised elevations would you like to walk us through those please sure I can let the architect of that building Kelly weigh in but what I can start by saying is that that has been one of the long road items is the architecture of the Chase Bank building on the corner I think that we have now come to a point where enough of the building has the appearance of two stories and we have some regular second-story windows that address the comments that were received at the last hearing where Lucy was presenting for TCE so I think we're a lot closer and hopefully the board can weigh in and let us know what you think thank you board what do we think of the space behind what's in the space behind the second story or that the upper windows I see that they are clear windows but do they open to down below or is there is there actually a floor area behind it so behind that would be just a structure however in order to illuminate those areas we are proposing to install shadow boxes behind so basically just create a pocket for a light behind that space and then the structure would be behind that so at night will they be lit up yes so since that was one of the points that the board brought up last time the intent was to keep those windows as opaque have opaque film on them but because we wanted to see those illuminated at night Chase agreed that we can install pockets behind that which will have bar lights on the top and illuminate at night okay and the center sorry it's just similar to the dim emergency pendants that are on 24-7 in the offices below okay and the center elements that sort of on east elevation and west elevation you know that's the with the canopy and all that is that a true two-story element or is that shadow box glazing above the canopy it's all a photo story per the per the code no what I mean is is that build is that a two-story volume interior so all that is actually natural daylight windows and on that section of the building it would have the shadow box at that portion as well okay okay you're done mark yep okay other questions gentle with each other my goodness the questions comments no okay move on to the next the next two comments are bike about bike storage and there's concern that to get to the bike storage you have to walk through the let's see staff considers the location to be less than ideal and considers a more accessible location would be one way the applicant could improve the project in light of the modifications they are requesting as a PUD are you able to change the bike storage I can also let Kelly weigh in on that but I think it was a bit of a challenge to find a location within the Chase Bank building that's not their standard but they did find a space so I think the space shown on the floor plan is their preferred location on the interior and there's just feeling that if you have an expensive bike and you want to store it inside that you will go ahead and bring it inside to that indoor space so you're not changing anything from what you proposed we would prefer to keep it in that location if that's okay with the board because as staff noted there isn't anything specific within the LDRs that says you must place it within okay eight feet of the entrance or something like that in which case we would have to and the location of the bicycle racks are you okay with that being a condition of approval if this project were to be approved I think we could do that as a condition of approval with a with a bike spaces I think we could find spaces for that if we needed to we think that the bike spaces we've shown is split up in a way that the the phase one and phase two is intended to be built as close together as possible Gary wants to build this project it's his project his personal project that he'll own and maintain for the long term so I think we should keep in mind that it's just not physically possible to build such different structures all at the same moment so the idea is to build the first set and go to the second on the bike storage if if as a condition we need to add some more temporary bike racks during the construction if there's a concern there isn't enough place for bikes we're amenable to that we would take them away after because we do feel there'll be excess when the project is done as far as storing the bikes in the staff room for the bank employees we're hoping that if not now then in the future bank employees will bike in they're on the bike path but a lot of folks have expensive bikes and having them in the break room it seems logical and given that the rules don't say it has to be at the doorway or some other place I think if we want these people to use the bikes and get quality bikes then letting them put them in the break room where they work would seem to follow but if you want extra bikes extra bike racks because there's a concern that we won't actually have enough racks for the people that are biking we could put temporary ones in they just take them away after yeah I think the as far as the bike rack exterior spaces that we have I think we had initially laid it out like that on purpose because we thought that was the best space for them to be located and expected that probably those would be used more on the residential side of the site than on the commercial side of the site but if needed we can adjust those counts between the phases any other questions or comments comment number four staff recommends the board confirm the applicant does not propose to make any changes to this aspect of the plan I frankly I was a little confused by the paragraph before it Marla and I wonder if you could explain it please so the comment of the stormwater section is that the soil conveying water to the bioretention area terminates in a nine-foot vertical drop essentially a waterfall into the bioretention area the applicant said that they would provide a yard drain to convey that water which is fine but as we've talked about in in the context of other applications conditions of rule have to be specific and so the plans need to show where that yard drain is in order to improve it because it's it's not specific enough just to say that there will be a yard drain I can speak to that I think I have a couple things I want to talk about before this comment but to address this one since we're talking about it now the plans that we submitted on 626 do show the yard drain location very specifically and call it out so I think it was just an oversight can you point me to where that is sure it's on C 301 the utility plan and we included it on the like a little snip clip of that on the response document that was submitted back to your office today after receiving those comments late last week we quickly tried to take a look at all of them to see what was going on so there it is thanks okay any other questions about that yes oh sorry you said you wanted to make some comments go ahead I just wanted to back up to talk about the inclusionary count just wanted to make sure that it's clear that the plans have been revised to include the seven inclusionary units and that there was additional letter submitted by Mark Hall kind of addressing that issue that was submitted as part of the package so just for the board's understanding Jen this is the seven units is something that you provided to me as something to show on the screen the board hasn't seen any of that yet so if you want to present that that'd be great sure and I'll make sure the board gets it after the meeting but we don't sort of send them new stuff right before the meeting yeah it's a bit tricky with that timing of when the staff comments come out and yes scrambling to try to get no you're absolutely welcome to provide things to show up on the screen but okay perfect Alan do you want to just for Mark's benefit Alan who's one of the project architects is saying that there's six inclusionary units in the larger building in one inclusionary unit in the smaller building and do you have anything else to add I don't thank you so let's see one more comment about lighting exterior lighting that had not been addressed at least at the time the staff report was written yes and we did have to kind of dig into it to find that hotspot we did and we talked about it with the Chase Bank team has their own engineer and he responded to us late last week that he would be okay with adjusting the building lights on light lot one under the canopy entrance to comply with the zoning okay thank you requirements and then same thing there was a little tiny bit of bleed over onto the Cotto lot to the south and same thing we can provide shields on those light fixtures to make sure not a speck of light over on to the next site thanks so we're going to take some public comment if there is any but at this point and I have a few comments to make any other questions or comments from the board okay so I think we're approaching a point where we feel like we have the information we need to make a decision and I I'm going to be perfectly honest with you the board is leaning toward not approving this project we have we continue to have concerns about the the bank drive-in and also the inclusionary the calculation of the inclusionary units so just wanted to kind of give you that that heads up if you would like to continue the hearing so you can address these issues further we would consider that but otherwise I would suggest we close the hearing tonight ask for public comment and close the hearing tonight I guess I have one question about that start the letter from Mark Hall that addressed the inclusionary units there was kind of a once it went to the attorneys I stepped out but in that letter from Mark there was a a questioner suggestion about conferring with the city council about that issue I was just wondering if that's been done was there any further conversation or just city council has no sorry not city council the attorney for the city well whatever we may have done with council is at this point attorney client privilege this is a determined there's a determination made by the board after consideration okay I was just wondering where that was left off because I reread the letter from our call today and at the end of it it just asked that question and I you're right that's might be none of my business but I was just wondering if that had happened so thank you thank you any other questions or comments from the board are there any members of the public who would like to comment there any online so looks like we're moving toward closure close the hearing I would entertain a motion to close this hearing so I'd like to question my name is I born and I'd like to ask what does the board looking for at that that site because it looks horrendous and I really like to know what the board is thinking would be the best use for that site Irene are you a member of the public I am okay thank you so we all part of me I do own the property but I would like to know okay but I am as well we pay tax we would not disagree with you that the appearance of that area currently is is horrendous as you say it's pretty much an eyesore however the board has given a great deal of feedback and we've spent a lot of time discussing our concerns about things such as the inclusionary units and the calculation of that and in particular the drive-up ATM so it's not our responsibility to suggest what we think would be a good plan the regulations exist for a reason and I feel like the board has given the applicant plenty of feedback about things we're concerned about in this proposal as it currently exists okay I guess that doesn't answer the question but we move forward well if the question is what would we like to see there what we would like to see I mean there are elements of this project that are very good very attractive what we would like to see there is a project that both in appearance and function and use are attractive improve that area and are consistent with existing regulations and currently there are there are lots of requests for waivers in this project and there are several things that are we believe just out of compliance with the current regulations but then the regulations can change on a moment-by-moment basis like the ATM drive-through which changed back in March but that's what I'm saying like if we reissue something else like you don't want to financial you'd rather a financial the board I'm sorry I'm gonna jump in here as staff the board is beholden to enforce the regulations in front of them so if an application comes in subject to a certain set of regulations that doesn't change until the application is closed and the board is while they are human beings they their first responsibility is to projects that comply with the rules not projects that are something that they like or dislike if it's a project that fully complied I'm not intent to enter an argument or a back and forth if this were a project that the board didn't like but it fully complied with the rules they would be beholden to approve it anyway thank you Marla thank you can I can I just mention a couple things I I guess I didn't expect to hear that it's sort of the first time we're hearing that so definitively before you know in the future it was something that would be considered but this is the first time I'm hearing that as far as it being so definitive so I just want to take one second to just go over what we have agreed to and we have changed so I don't we are well aware of that yeah don't want there to be a perception that you know this applicant hasn't made a lot of compromises and change the plan significantly to comply with other requests not those two specifically but many of the other requests those are pretty big ones and I think that we I feel like the board has given you lots of feedback about their concern about the drive innate drive up ATM and I mean and I think some board members would argue that still that the elevations are not what people want to see that it doesn't give the appearance of a two-story building this this version that's here to me yes yes so I feel like we have given you a lot of feedback about our concerns about these things so right and I think that you know the last time I was here when we talked about that I was asked for the one-page summary which I submitted to the board and then we haven't talked about it since really so from my perspective it is the first time I'm hearing a definitive if you keep the ATM and then you're out what we're not issuing a decision tonight we're just giving you some feedback right would you like to request a continuance that that's what I was attempting to talk to Gary about that that's what we're down to I will request a continuance but it's confusing on our side because if a bank goes in where Denny's is goes in where Koto's is or if we had not if we'd ignored what the planning board in an open meeting pushed us to do and we agreed to it we didn't have to agree to it they pushed that this should be a PUD if we had skipped the PUD and just said we're going to develop the shell as a bank then we'd be allowed it by code we'd be allowed the ATM but because we're trying to take guidance and we had our architect meet with Mr. Connors and try to figure out before we started any of this what would be the best project that would fit the needs and we were told repeatedly housing because there's all these bonus units and we were told an institution would be okay staff discuss this with the bank prior to discussing it with me I heard about it after the bounce and they were excited to be part of it and to be in this location so we're in a situation where Koto's could have a drive-through next year they could come in with a different bank and but this site can't because we've agreed to a PUD but the staff is telling us that you have the right to rule over that if you wish on the inclusionary I don't understand the confusion in the math quite frankly but I do know this was the sales pitch that we got before we did anything down there was this is the city wants this they want it downtown they want the housing where the bike path is where the bus route is we can make the numbers work with the extra units now the idea of redesigning and sucking the units out we've kind of got our heart set on the setup we've got because the economics seem to work even though this has gone on for well quite quite some time the first meeting with Paul was in 2020 2020 was when it started so that's where we're coming from and yes we'll accept it continuance okay I just want to reiterate that the regulations at this time say that new drive-through facilities are prohibited from locating within a PUD but also the PUD regulations say that you this board has the ability to waive the requirements outland and zoning we've been around this particular merry-go-round several times and you're hearing where we've come out so you would like to continue this rather than have us close so the board it's up to the board if the board feels they have the information if the applicant you know convinces you that there's more information they would like to present that is new you're welcome to continue the hearing if you feel like there's nothing the applicant can say to change your mind then you're welcome to not accept their request to continue and close the meeting I don't think I mean maybe the question is do you want to continuance because you think we'll sit on it for a couple of weeks and change our mind and tend to address our concerns I would love now that we've heard that so definitively from the board that I would love a few minutes to talk to my client about that before being closed and and moved on if you if the board is telling us to go sure take a break take a break and take a 10 minute break yes yeah and there's something to be said for closing it because if you want to appeal it the quicker you can appeal it you know right okay I would appreciate that all right I'm gonna see you back here in 10 minutes thank you thanks Jen that's a great idea so we're still recording and we're still live so welcome to talk about your vacations and your landscaping and those are recording though yes but people I mean I can pause the recording but I think it looks a little fishy so if we want to talk about Frank's fishing trip for instance that would be fine we can step out of the room to talk about I don't know Dawn's medical condition but it's not it's not a much talk about the acoustics in the room yeah mill and then there's cider mill to also known as Edgewood that connects to cider mill and Hinesburg Road so it's like Dorset Street cider mill Edgewood Hinesburg Road so if you're going down Hinesburg Road before you get to cheese factory before you get to cheese factory just past Helen and Ted's house okay there's a there's a driveway that goes all the way through the doors yes but it's not a straight shot I mean it's you know new by any stretch but it's narrower than a driveway yeah there is a section that next down through the wetland yeah it's not gonna be a it's not gonna be a I'm glad it's there cuz clearly it's a code required item yeah so we don't more than 50 units of the single engine but it's not a cut-through no hopefully we'll get Jen and Gary back soon it's been 12 minutes do you want me to call them in give them three more minutes okay the different colors because it does that because it's fun I think it's a gaming thing oh all right okay what it's fun mark for your benefit we're marking that John's laptop has lights on it fun colored place on the is it like an alien and alien wear a laptop yes it is yeah yeah my gaming niece made built a computer with those fees and all that yeah yeah you're very hip and happening according to her so Marla just a little chitchat I put these in these are complete article replacements yes these are yeah I put them in I'm up to date right to today yes punched in everything but not tomorrow that's the sense I'm getting to move in target I don't know how you keep this just frenetic activity in the planning commission or what well yeah right now they're frenetic right literally right now they're over in another meeting room meeting on the comprehensive plan going line by line doing some word smithing what kind of overdue for comprehensive plan not yet no for right on schedule they changed it from five years to eight years oh five day I always think of it as five yeah it's changed eight so we're good still the last one was in 2016 yeah it'll be right on track if everything gets done on time the planning commission has put in their time yeah I'm sorry I didn't get an update on new DRB member I tried to hunt them down the other day and I couldn't find anyone so I slipped my mind after that is Mark still with us here yep he's the green M on the screen I see him yeah I'm here I just forgot my laptop at home so I'm just on my desktop which doesn't have a webcam but does it have cool lights no it's a boring Dell I remember in college I had an Acer and you picked which Acer you wanted based on what cool colors it came in because that's where computers were at the time don't worry about the specs just pick your color mm-hmm and bigger was considered cooler that's a choice for a laptop no this was desktops oh yeah no I'm older than you think I am we had desktops and then the really cool kids had the the what do they call it was like an Apple computer where the desktop and the monitor were built into one unit well originally they had the Macintosh that that's way before your time I had to get one of those when I went to college and squares yeah yeah it was kind of rectangular they dumped the end of my school and then ran away and refused to support it I haven't bought an Apple product since oh I never did you find them in the hall I did they said they were on their way back but then they had another one too it was a little cooler with kind of like a colored part color part transparent case yep do you remember this I fruit yeah I fruit what do you call it it's all the I fruit really okay yeah oh like Apple okay I don't remember that I don't remember that name did you go out and talk I did here they come you amuse me my master's thesis was typed on a manual typewriter oh yes I had a couple of those too yeah remember how exciting it was when they came with autocorrect a little ribbon they press a button right well acted for you oh that was those were the days where all the energy went into getting it typed not to okay what are your thoughts thank you for your patience and allowing us to take that break to regroup I do have a question yes could either of these could the project be approved with those two items being conditioned a condition of approval no Frank says no that's pretty fun it's pretty fundamental that's a radical change in the design so Mark sorry Mark did you want to say something no I was just gonna ask what do you mean by condition of approval meaning you know there's two big ticket items inclusion housing and the ATM drive-through drive-up how do you mean by conditional because we're basically saying those are non starters for us yep I'm just asking the question if you would be willing to approve the project with a condition of the approval being that we would adjust the inclusionary units and remove you mean with the condition that you eliminate the drive-through well now we would have to definitely see that because I change is your lot coverage that changes the circulation we would that's a fundamental change we would need to see a site plan showing that no it can I infer from this that you're looking for something to go back to chase with and say they won't approve this if you don't answer that question that's fine but it sounds like that's what you're asking from us is something hard that you can go back to chase and say this is do or die am I reading into this incorrectly that would need to happen yes but we're more interested in trying to get this done I mean the drive-through thing we've all beat this to death it was a total surprise that staff discovered it six months after it was entered into the code and so we weren't aware of it we spent months on one path we all had to change directions because it was discovered in the code we're trying to get this to the end we're asking that if you when you consider it and go to vote it if you set aside the inclusionary and the ATM as conditions Kent is the rest of it are we there with the rest of it I'm not sure I understand what you're asking us to approve a project with two major elements unresolved no that you know they're saying they'll take them out so you'll you'll remove the ATM and produce two less units so right we're asking for approval of the project with those two if you don't agree with our arguments on either of those cases which it seems like you don't then that would be a condition of the approval saying we approve your project you've resolved the other hundred items we had a concern of and we're down to these two items and you are at you would be asking as part of the condition of approval one of the conditions would be remove the ATM I need to jump in the board is not obligated to make a decision on a project in public session you don't there are as Jen said a hundred different things that have been discussed and resolved or not resolved you know or resolved to a greater or lesser degree let me say it that way and the board is not obligated to issue their final finding until they issue their final finding it if you would let me interrupt me if I'm off base here if you want to go away and continue this and amend your plan by addressing our concerns about the inclusionary units and taking out the ATM would that be appropriate yeah well that's what I thought the choice we are the two it's very simple a continuance to give you an opportunity to change what we're as good as telling you is going to result in the denial of the project or which you prefer to have us close the hearing probably get your project denied and and you know and and accelerate your opportunity to appeal by a few weeks where you can challenge our our determinations which is that to me those you're off to me it's black-white you go for a continuance to meet our concerns or you take it on the chin and and seek your remedies and I don't see a grey zone in there we've been beating around this bush for months right I'm sorry just did you want to speak excuse me who are you and we're having a hard time hearing you mark we're having a really difficult time hearing you we can't hear you make any sense yeah sounds like you've had this problem before and I suppose it doesn't resolve it by just being closer to the microphone because it sounds just like it's cutting in and out you're right correct shoot yeah there's you can absolutely call in if you'd like mark that the number should be in the meeting info I can put in the yeah that's better no no no no sorry can you call in I can't thank you so dawn one thing I would just offer in terms of the not being able to do it as a condition is that big thing is removing the HM driving completely changes like the lot coverage numbers and things like that right has to be done it's not just a simple no I know on your site plan I understand I understand that goes to landscaping because you're now converting that to you know impervious surface you know how does it how's the circulation flow on the site now which is clearly going to be improved because I was a biggest one of my major concerns is how do you come in one way get into the PCM Q so no that's something that's a big thing that's not a you know put a railing up or had a parking spot or something like that which I can clearly condition we're waiting for mark to call in yeah I put the call in information in the chat looks like he's working on it he said he couldn't go and what is his role okay okay thank you technology is wonderful until it isn't mark looks like we're just waiting for you to connect you're in he's muted hang on I can press the button to ask you on mute I'll do that yeah I've got the meeting set to automatically meet new participants so there I am right that hello oh you need to mute your computer speaker so we don't hear you twice say something that should do it okay sorry about this guys new technologies mark you need to mute your computer turn off the sound on your computer so that we don't hear you twice that should do it much better tell us tell us your thoughts sorry about this guys well the only thought my main thought is basically more probably to do with the inclusionary is if there's a decision out there that says okay the applicant wants X numbers we think he can only do this we'll approve it for the 10 if he wants to do only seven inclusionary that's an issue we can take up on the field but we won't be stopped from constructing or beginning some construction by that maybe essentially you saying we're gonna deny you the three additional affordable units and I think you probably can do that with the ATM and so far as you can approve one plan versus another saying we're not gonna let them have the ATM we're gonna prove it but we're gonna deny the request for a waiver on the ATM that way we can go forward with the project and then take the two issues that are in dispute up to the court my concern about just getting a denial is that it takes the environmental courts out about a year right now I'm reaching any kind of decisions and you know this just delays the project over you know a couple of items that I think you know the court can decide and that's just my thought as you know people are talking around it but the idea is Gary is attempting to get an approval according to what the board is willing to approve but some acknowledgement that there's a dispute over a couple of points that people have to be sorted out by the court and I think the board has the authority to do that so I'm just gonna repeat what I said before the board doesn't have to make a decision I think I understand what mark is saying but I want to make sure that the board understands what mark is asking for and they can choose to take take that request or not so I'm gonna say what you said again mark and tell me if I've gotten this correct what you're asking for is an approval that conditions both the number of inclusionary units which I think is potentially more conditionable I guess to make up a word than the ATM because if it's 30 units it's just paperwork on whether seven or ten of them are inclusionary if what Frank insinuated earlier that it would be 27 or 30 that would not be a condition a conditionable approval because it wouldn't be known to an average person what that would look like there wouldn't be no plans that represented 27 for the ATM I think mark is making the argument that the same sort of condition could exist and I think that mark bears comment and I think some other members of the board echoed it it's not really possible to be specific enough on remove the ATM because it does affect a lot about the site if you presented a plan that showed you know we've been actually the board has done this before if you presented a plan that you didn't like that had no ATM on it and the board could issue a condition saying yes we approve this plan that you don't like that that's a condition that I think could work but without that plan and all the accompanying calculations and updated landscaping and updated you know whatever I don't think that that's something that could be done as a condition but you know the board can take marks that I'm not an attorney I'm not the board's attorney the board has their own attorney you can certainly take his request under advisement and make your own decision I mean we are we're looking from a standpoint of having a denial the entire project for two small points it will just slow the project down immensely whereas if there are two good face issues I think they're within the scope of the environment courts authority on the de novo review to make whatever changes they feel is appropriate at the next level but at least we would have something where we can start site work things of that nature that are issues that are not in big dispute with all due respect I would not call these two items small items I think they've been a through there's a through line through all our hearings about these issues Frank you were starting to say yeah let's let's acknowledge that what is a material change and our point is that these are material matters not small points and let's acknowledge that that may be a point of dispute the court has in fact gone pretty far in allowing contingent plans or finding that certain changes were not material for purposes requiring a new plan for example but you know it's a judgment call we may have we are in the process pretty much of having made the judgment call largely for the reasons that mark has the practical reasons mark has pointed out and you know I don't mind being I'm it's obvious where I stand you know I don't think it's appropriate to have them conditions of approval I don't know I don't really know how you do that without the plan that's mark mark is calling for which means coming back to the board to me and I don't know how you design a project for that you're saying is 27 units but it magically reduces the 25 or what else does that change I don't know so I find them material I wouldn't include them as part of a contingent approval and if they're not willing to change them I would my own vote I don't speak for the board I would deny the application you know see we see where the ships fall down the road but it still comes down to 45 or so minutes later whether they want to continue into a decision or a conclusion of the hearing so I leave it try to leave it back in your lap for a clean cut take on that point and John I see you have things to say the only thing I'm thinking is I from what I understand the applicants asking us sorry about that from what I'm hearing you're asking us to close the hearing and I would suggest the board take this to our attorney and ask them whether they think this is something that could be done or not and then if it can then we can deliberate on that and they say if it can't then there's all likelihood it'll get denied and returned but we can't tell you what's going on right now until we have a chance to talk to our solicitor about it so if you want us to close the hearing right now we can do that but I don't think we can begin to promise what action the board is going to take until we've gotten legal advice and Mark Bear do you have any comments to add I would I would only offer that it doesn't sound like the applicants asking for continuance or asking for the option of conditioning those two items and I think that you know we can reach out to our attorney our city the city attorney and ask them their opinion on it my only question is is there any information the city attorney is going to give us that would have us warrant us having to reopen the hearing or is it just going to how we structure our decision in a positive or negative way I think that's the way I think that we're going is close it take the applicant's request to the city attorney and then based on their input we structure our decision during deliberation so this is not your call but I would like to know what your opinion is about what we should do you know what you just put John just suggested that it seems like the right course of action get close to hearing close the hearing get an opinion about can since we've got to build our intent is to build 30 units either way can we sort out on paper at the end of the day which view prevails thank you very helpful to know that you'd prefer a condition that says 10 inclusionary over 27 total your intention your intention is okay everyone except Gary not it from the applicant team Frank Frank has something to say I just I didn't understand what mr. Warren just said we close the hearing we make a decision on the project that's it yes right there's nothing further to sort out on paper we're done and your next no your next move is either go forward with your project assuming nobody else appeals or to appeal our decision depending on how it comes out I don't I don't I didn't want to leave you with the impression that there's anything to talk about further after the after we close the hearing that will result in a decision understood understood not a sort not a further sorting out the further legal action perhaps but not a sorting out for the legal action is what I was referring sorry in other words and I understood yeah that's fine okay mark did you start to say something mark there no I think I was just saying is that I think the whole notion of the third the inclusionary issue it is I think that could be a condition or discussion based on what our city attorney and hard deliberations because of the as the applicant just say he's building 30 units it's just how many inclusionary get the mix you know assigned to the project right so it doesn't fundamentally change the design of the project it changes you know the inclusion mix right right that's an easier one for me but as a condition of our approval than the ATM issue right okay all right any other discussion before we entertain a motion to close the hearing yes thank you are there any members of the public who would like to comment all right would someone make a motion to close the hearing please second thank you any discussion all in favor of closing the hearing say aye aye no okay thank you for your patience I know this wasn't what you wanted to hear but that's part of the process so we will the board will probably take the whole 45 days okay thank you very much okay the minutes of the June 20th meeting I am not sure I saw those don you weren't here for that meeting she was I was wrong almost here yeah I was just trying to trick you all right did anyone like to see if I reviewed them pardon me you're trying to trick me to see if I actually reviewed them because I was like I saw it on this in the chair would anyone like to move acceptance of the minutes nope nope so can we can we look at those next time okay okay is there any other business be for the board thank you all I think we are finished for the evening all right all right good night good night okay