 He just says attending to one, so you need to wait for attendance. Okay. Okay, we'll get going and Mark can join us by go to meeting. There. So Mark is there. Mark, can you hear us? I can. Can you hear me? Mark. And your dog. Welcome to the south. Tuesday, August 7, 2018. First time on the agenda is directions on emergency evacuation procedures from the conference room. If there is an emergency, we can exit this room either through the way you came in or these two doors here and we should all meet if there's an emergency. Let's meet in the parking lot behind us here because we wanted to show everyone safe and a sign up sheet is what we need to determine if everyone is in fact there and let's all be safe. So the second item is additions, deletions, or changes in your agenda items. We do have a change. Billy, can we change? We move up item 10 and item 11 until after four in between four and five to accommodate some more board members. Sounds great. So we'll do the minutes and other business before item number five announcements. Any announcements? Paul Conner is here. Thank you very much for being here, Paul. Happy to be here. Yep. Any other announcements? Other business. Is there any other business before we go there? Yes. Okay. Minutes. Minutes. And minutes. Wake up. Yes, minutes. I thought we were doing minutes after number four. We just did number four. I was going to ask this. Oh. Yes. Not fourth big one, but the fourth one. Right. Yeah. Great. Great. Yeah. Sorry about that. Everyone has had a chance to review the minutes and comments, questions, revisions. They look fine. I would approve the minutes from July 17, 2018. Second? Second, approve these minutes. I'm going to first say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Item number five. Preliminary and final clarification. SD 18-20 of blockade ventures. LLC. After blockade ventures, eight LLC to subdivide an existing 22.6 acre person. The five blocks ranging in size from .2 acres to .1.6 acres. 415 to 495 of the market street. Who was here for the applicant? I am David Schenck. I am floor and final clarification. So would you please raise your right hand. I do. So we are here for preliminary and final to subdivide a larger parcel into five parcels primarily for the development of one through four on the Heinsberg roadside of that parcel. Each lot will be developed into triplexes with access to those developments through a preexisting driveway already constructed on the eastern side. There will be parking in the rear. Also, we will see kind of an easement area for stormwater pond. Kind of right there on that cursor. So we are here to do the subdivision of land. I'm happy to discuss a little bit more about the project itself, but that premise summarizes the application of the subdivision. We currently have submitted, this is kind of anecdotal, but we have submitted form-based code application to staff. It's currently under reviewed. And we do have a community meeting scheduled for the 13th with the butters. Sounds great. I have no questions on the application. Have you seen the staff comments, the draft decision? I have. Do you have any questions or comments on that? I do not. I think they're fine. This is just a subdivision. So this is not the project itself. So it looks straight forward to me. We've got the form-based code application through the staff review, right? Yes. The project itself with the two staff reviews of the community meeting. So, board, any comments, questions? Okay. Public, any comments or questions? I have several comments. Yeah, and if you could please come up here and identify yourself and use the side table. My name is Bill Gerlach. I represent 16 and 18 Ivy Street. Your specifications, 12.02 wetland protection standards, C2 wetland map and applicability standards. One, all wetlands within the city identified on the city's wetland map and buffer of 50 feet are subject to these provisions. Under E, standards for wetland protection encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is generally discouraged. Growing C1.1 indicates wetlands and buffer zones, both of which show construction in them on lot four, including a building, parking, and trash dumpster area. Now, it's my understanding that these were changed administratively without a public input. My concerns are that with the way this is being built and the way the driveways are constructed, that when they plow the snow, all that snow is going to end up in the wetlands and basically right behind my backyard and my mom's backyard. We're currently dealing with water problems because of the construction of Market Street, where the wetland was interrupted 15 years ago whenever that was. And I'm expecting that this business is going to exasperate that. I don't know how you go about removing the... administratively removing the wetlands from your wetland map administratively. I mean, having somebody else actually say, this is what we should do and you agree to it. I've also looked at the rise just from Market Street from the point of the lot four pin going east and up to the driveway that they're planning on using. The Market Street rises about 70 inches. And that's an approximate, that's used in a hand level just to get these... Also standing in Market Street and looking onto the existing driveways, it rises up almost 66 inches, somewhere in that vicinity, making it about an 11-foot differential of change. I'm wondering how much fill is planned down at lot four, where I'll be looking at instead of nice trees, I'll be looking at walls that are... I don't know how tall they are. I know that up at that last condo that was already constructed, the guy's got a 54-inch wall and then he's got a stock eight fence above it that he's looking at. So it's pretty ugly. So far your comments are referred to the project, not to the subdivision. Well, it may be, but the subdivision has to do with dealing with this water and wetlands. So the project will have to do with the wetlands. The subdivision is just a subdivision for the purpose of doing a project and these concerns, I believe, are probably handled at the community meeting and not here is my concern. I mean, I'm happy to be corrected. Well, if this law is subdivided... I mean, once you subdivide it, you've already done... It's a done deal, it's just a matter of building on it. That's not necessarily true. That's not at all true. The community meeting is for comments about the project itself to be aired, comments and concerns about the project itself to be aired. Am I wrong on this? Nope, you're correct. Okay, it's rare. So... Okay, well, all of this will come back out again next week then. Okay, that's Monday, right? August 13th. Yes. Okay. More comments and questions from the public on the subdivision alone. Hearing none, I want to join the motion to close. I move that we close preliminary and final plot application SD 1820 of back bay ventures. Second. That's SD 1821, right? What did I say? Like I said, 20. You're right, it says 20 in one place and 21 in another. Second. Yeah, 1821 on the actual... Okay, revised my motion. Preliminary and final plot application SD 1821 of black bay ventures LLC. Second. We need to close this application. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda, sketch plan application SD 18-22 of Mitch Ward's properties LLC to combine two watts into one lot for the purpose of constructing a project on the combined parcel, which will be reviewed under separate site plan application 321 and 325 Dorset Street who are here for the outcome. Hi. My name is Jen Bezatelle with Trudel Consulting Engineers. I am here to represent the applicant. Okay, conflicts of interest. First off. We do business occasionally with Jen, but I don't see any direct conflict. Okay. Any other conflicts? None. All good? Nope. Okay. Yeah. So this is sketch plan. So this is non binding. I don't have to square you in. Again, sketch plans for everyone's information. Sketch plans are non binding and they have to come back as the gentleman was just here for preliminary and final application and that is binding. But sketch plan is not binding. Please describe the project. Okay. So we are here tonight with a sketch plan application to combine two lots into one lot for the purpose of constructing a project in the future. The two lots are 321 and 325 Dorset Street. They're two small 0.17 acre parcels and we're proposing to combine those into 1.34 acre parcel. We're seeing the staff notes. I have. Okay. Any questions? I don't have any. Okay. As staff note, it's consistent. There's the proper answer is fine. There's a strange channel and associated buffer north of the property. The buffers associated do not extend on the subject property. Fire chief has reviewed. So combining of lots seems fine to me. Other comments from the board. That's fine. Okay. Comments, questions from the public. I didn't, I didn't see any issues with that. Thanks Mark. Just wondering what you're planning just for my own curiosity. I don't, don't have an injection. I just, what's the plan? The plan for the project. We've submitted a site plan application for a mixed use building. Commercial and residential. Yes. Of course. And so that's currently and currently submitted to the city. Thank you. Sure. Okay. I think that's it. We don't have to close this application. I think that's it. Record scene again. Thank you. Next time. Item number seven. Miscellaneous application of Elizabeth. 1803 of Elizabeth Pierce to confirm the presence and sale ability of transfer development rights. On lots. A, B and C at 1731. Himesburg road. Miscellaneous application. So this is a square unit. Who is here for the applicant? Right. So I'm Brandon bless. I'm the representative for the applicant. Right. So we're working on these three lots that you see up on the slide there to do a conservation project. And so what we're, what we're trying to do is basically take these lands, reduce them from their development value down to their agricultural value to keep them as open space. And development value. Reduce them from their development value to their agricultural value. For the purpose of keeping all of these lands in open space or as much as possible and in agricultural use. So we're working with Vermont land trust on that side of the easement to do the conservation easement on it. So we're asking. The board to look at the TDR program that the city has to say, yes, you know, this, this many TDRs exist on these lands. Yes, you can use them in this way on these lands. And yes, they'll be there after the transaction of the property. And that, you know, everything is basically as we think it's going to be. So that's sort of one piece of it. And then another piece of it is on a lot a, which is on the right hand side there. There's already a substantial portion that has had TDRs sold and sent from it, meaning that the land has effectively has an easement from the city. And so we're asking the DRB to recommend to the city council that that easement be supplanted by the Vermont land trust each easement, which satisfies all the city requirements for that, for that easement. And then it's not actually well-defined in the application, but additionally to that. So looking at the existing TDRs that have already been sent off, but the entire project, we would look for the same recommendation to city council that if there are opportunities for VLT to take the easement that DRB would recommend to city council for VLT to do that. This is actually the southeast corner of South Burlington. Correct. Yeah. This is it. This is it. This is it. This is it. This is it. This is it. This is it. This is it. This is it. This is it. This is it. This is it. This is it. This is it. This is it. This is it. This is it. This is it. This is it. I think we are looking for approval from us, approve agreement from us. That your proposal to reserve the development, put just to say to have the city or a land trust by the development lights to this property. We simply agree with that. So we're looking for approval from DRB them in these ways as outlined which is basically just saying there's not going to be any odd restrictions applied specifically to these properties that would be outside of what we already understand. So that's kind of in one bucket and then the other bucket would be recommending to the city council for the conservation side of things specifically that the easement that the city has through the TDRs that have already been sent that we can have the Vermont Land Trust easement basically supplant that so that so the city would revoke its easement on those lands with a simultaneous conservation from the Vermont Land Trust. The whole reason for that is because the way that Vermont Land Trust does conservation projects is it needs to be under their kind of easement umbrellas so that they can get their conservation funding from NRCS and other sources. This has been done before with the Wadooke property transfer same exact thing. So it looks straightforward to me board members you have comments, questions? You've seen the draft. Thank you. Go ahead Mark. I spoke to Marla about it earlier today and the maybe it was explained but you know normally I'm trying to figure out why we as the DRB are getting involved in this from I think it might have this amount of sort of like the site that they have an inherent amount of TDRs and it's sort of almost more like a market condition whether they get transferred and then they're recorded and some teach track of it. Why are we getting involved in it at this point to say yes we agree kind of thing? Would you like me to answer that please? Mark this is Paul Conner. I think it sort of dates back to the prior work that we that the city and the DRB had done with the Ladooke property back in 2009 2010 and I think essentially the request from the parties including the Vermont land trust had been in order to be clear to their funding partners including Vermont housing conservation board and the naturally NRCS that they those partners wanted a little bit more of a formal acknowledgement of how many TDRs there are in order to pursue their funding. So while it is essentially an acknowledgement of what the regulations say the Vermont land trust partners had requested that there be a little bit higher more formal statement of that in order for them to be providing the substantial funds towards the conservation. So at the time back in 2009 2010 the the sense was that the the the the organization best suited to do that would be the DRB even though it's an unusual action for the board. So Paul I understand that it is unusual and it's something that I would personally support but what I'm having a little trouble with is what is the authority for us to take that action? Well so the so the there's two different requests here so the authority to state the number of TDRs is essentially as the stewards of the regulations if somebody were to be say doing a development proposal that the board in its findings often determines X number of X amount of density was allowable X number of units were proposed so it's sort of in line with a statement of this is the maximum number of TDRs in existence here so that that's where we drew the authority from the second half of it which is the request to recommend to the council regarding the sort of supplanting of the conservation role of the TDRs the the concurrence of the city attorney and the Vermont land trust attorney was that since the since the regulations are the purview of the DRB it would be appropriate to have the DRB make a recommendation that you're finding the this that the Vermont land trust method of conservation is equivalent to the cities and then it's ultimately the council's decision to do so so that's the thinking of both of those I don't want to stop something that appears to have broad support but I am concerned and I think Frank would be what we would be doing especially with the first test that you mentioned Paul is issuing something called an advisory opinion and I don't believe that as a quasi judicial board we have the authority to issue advisory opinions but that's maybe something that could be taken up with the city attorney do you have other comments I just want to make clear that kind of the amendments to the application unless there are other thoughts so the one the one amendment that I already mentioned which is that assuming that recommendation goes through that you'd be recommending the same for any of the lots a b or c with any of the restrictions there that the city would otherwise impose to be supplanted by the Vermont land it's the same request that's just applied more broadly to the three lots if that's agreeable and then all right I don't know what I saw this is if the board were to approve transfer of earth TDRs were sold on lots on any of the three lots in the future specifically sent yes yeah if they were transferred to another if they moved from their current location yeah then the board would be saying that they they're making the same recommendation as now with the current TDRs that have already been sent but the but the would it be simpler to say that we would accept the Vermont land trust conditions straight outright rather than saying we would supplement city yeah it would be the same what we I guess this request is coming from the perspective of we don't want we don't want to have to come back here to do the same thing exact same request when NRCS has certain deadline and application deadline so we just are foreseen if we have any situation where this exact same thing is coming up can we just it's the it's the same request so could we have the same recommendation and agreement now does that make sense so the conditions that would be proposed would be different the conservation conditions imposed on the easement would be different than the Vermont land trust ones that the board is reviewed no same thing yep exact same thing no no difference at all it's just it's sort of saying like hey this seems to make sense for this conservation project as a whole is that is that clear I think I get it so we would be the board would be saying that the conservation restrictions proposed by Vermont land trust to supersede the existing conservation restrictions would also be consistent with LDR 9.13 C if they were applied to other portions of the property. I don't think that's a reach because this is the 9.13 C the portion of it that pertains to this request that he's making paraphrasing a little bit the sending parcel is sufficiently encumbered against further land subdivision and development through a purchase or other agreement acceptable to the city attorney to ensure conformance to these regulations the applicant must demonstrate that to the board in order to for the board to approve a PUD application that involves TDRs so if everybody understands the proposal we can deliberate on it as long as we all understand I have a quick question has anybody studied the Vermont land trust docs to make sure that they are in compliance? The city attorney has reviewed them late last week and feels that they are consistent with this and with the transfer development rights section in the state statutes I would just add that I request that the city attorney review and then so there was one other amendment to the language that I actually need help with because I don't understand it to tell me what this means so our attorney took a look at this and if you look at under the decision item 4B currently it says the number of available development rights on each parcel will not be affected by sale of the parcels unless the sale explicitly includes conditions affecting the development rights honestly I don't even know exactly what that means so what our attorney said that he thinks would make more sense for it to say so the number of available development rights on each parcel will not be affected by the sale of the parcels unless the sale explicitly foresees the development rights as part of the conservation sale or process as accrued to by the applicant does that make sense to anyone here? I only got the first half of the sentence so starting with unless the sale explicitly foregoes the development rights as part of the conservation sale as agreed to by the applicant and I asked what the rationale was for this change and he said that same thing it's a minor tweak to the language to ensure that for NRCS we don't have to come back and get another approval but I honestly do not understand exactly what it's getting at so I've got unless the sale explicitly blank unless the sale explicitly foregoes the development rights as part of the conservation sale or process as agreed to by the applicant you would like that to replace the unless clause in 4B does the board have any questions they want to ask about that now or something you want to just discuss? well I didn't understand it I don't understand the original language either that's why I don't understand what the changes are the idea of the original language for the benefit of the board was that we didn't want to say the number of available development rights on each parcel will not be affected by the sale of the parcel because what if the sale of the parcel said we're selling you the parcel of what we're keeping the development rights so we wanted to have a clause in there saying unless something funny happens with the sale pertaining to development rights does this language change perfects that? I would suggest the city attorney look at this too questions from the board go ahead I guess my recommendation would be that if you would like the city attorney to look at this the first question is really just a question of your authority this one sounds like you may have an additional question following it so if that was the case I'd recommend that you continue it to your next meeting if there's an open question here we will continue it next meeting 18th 21st any public comments any public questions we're a neighbor on the north side of parcel A and it's great to hear that our plans are put this in trust we're very happy to hear that I'm just curious when is the anticipated date for that to go into land trust and when it does plans of use for the land will it be farmed, will it be hated, etc yeah so you're saying what the first question was what are the dates that the land trust would actually conserve the land conservation tends to be like a multi-year process from the point of transaction usually this is a unique scenario where a collection of partners have had to act pretty quickly to purchase the land and then go through a conservation process so to conserve the entire property we're looking at a multi-year process I can't give you specific dates I don't know them I don't think anyone knows them quite yet so I would see this if you went back to that original map I would see it in a sort of phased process where lot A would probably be the first to be conserved followed by C and B is the likely scenario but that's unknown so the best answer I can give you on that is a multi-year process that the plan is in place to be conserved and that builders can't build or anyone else purchase it right so the plan would be in place as of the time of the closing of the properties where we would be working with Vermont Land Trust and other folks to go ahead with that conservation process so that would be happening really as soon as possible but it's part of it depends what DRB's approval here and recommendation to the City Council so this decision has a heavy impact on the conservation of the property and then your second question is what's going to happen with the land in terms of land use after the fact so it will be under explicitly sustainable agriculture practices for the lack of better words there so you'd be seeing effectively organic farming whether it was certified or not we should also be clear that lot B is developable at least part of it is developable at least that's what I read from the notes and so it isn't like that whole property is going to be necessarily conserved or is the plan indeed to conserve the whole property goal number one is to conserve the entirety of the property okay so the LDR's don't require that but the goal of the land owners to do that yes you had a question I did so I'm part of a bread and butter farm and so we would be the farmers that would be managing the land okay and so can you please tell me the crossroads that are on A, B and C in here sure that's cheese factory road and Route 116 Heinzberg road yep can I approach please well here we go part of that is developable which part the most northern northeast section of parcel B and the most southeast section of parcel B southeast correct so it's in kind of in two chunks so the northern section and then there's a gap it's not ledge it's a wetland actually so it's a clay plain forest in there in that entire section the ledge is up on the northeast corner of the property so just to show you this is the property you're just looking at this orange is the developable area and this orange is the developable area that's the natural resource protection district and it's what 100 feet it's probably more than that it's probably I named for more like a thousand I think so it's a 117 acre property so to give that perspective I inquired about buying the property across the street so I don't think it's a thousand feet okay do you know I do not know definitively so this is all going to be farmed is that your plan correct it's going to be part of bread and butter yeah part of bread and butter and then probably we'll see it some other farmers joining us yes okay so you're going to increase your your farm so are you thinking about moving like the hamburger days over here no basically for you know hayland as mentioned before for grazing lands things like that so agricultural production now but this may be developed that as has been mentioned by the board is the only parcel that has the opportunity for high development value it is not high development value yeah it is actually relatively high so it has the opportunity for only if conservation fails and conservation fell over here if conservation were to fail on A it only has the potential for up to three house sites so development isn't a threat on A what we're trying to do is just basically conserve the land for farm this was tried to be conserved are you referring to parcel A or a different one no conservation when it was in for sale about four months ago it's still attempting to be conserved yeah but it's not and please address the board so this has been attempted to be conserved for a long time but it hasn't been I even inquired about purchasing this property with a friend to do hay or horse it didn't work I was told no because it was on the contract and then the contract failed so my question is to the board if this is going to be developed here which is clearly the intent otherwise the intent is to conserve it the intent by whom it's available for development two little pieces are available for development but the intent of the sellers is to conserve the whole thing it's already failed over here no contract with us has failed and no conservation with us has failed at all I'm not privy to any prior history there I contacted them about this property that's possible maybe with someone else that put in an offer it hasn't happened with us so our conservation strategy thus far has not failed and property C here this is only for conservation our number one goal is to conserve as much of the land as possible what we have to do is basically recognize there's a development value and there's an agricultural value and how do we fill that gap and our number one strategy is through conservation funds which is why this whole TDR thing is something we have to be really diligent about because TDR is something I'm kind of becoming very conscious of right now so if you get all the TDRs for this what do you plan to do with the TDRs? so the number one goal would be if we could we would conserve the whole thing and extinguish the TDRs if we could find the conservation funds to do that so the property A so all of property A is in the natural resource protection district in addition to that the city has buffers for development activities adjacent to streams, rivers, wetlands all those kinds of things so yes those would as well apply there is some differentiation between how local regulations apply to development versus agriculture because agriculture in the state of Montage is exempt from local regulations so they follow state regulations as it relates to where farming can and cannot happen does that answer your question? yeah and then the other follow up on that I forget the name of that stream on the north side of Hans Siklin there's a senior that acquired either outright or through easements and there's a trail there was a plan for a trail on this property A should the partners that have been discussing the conservation proceed the city has been in separate discussions from the DRB about continuing trail access but that's a that would be dependent upon ownership transfer right now the property has not been sold to the farming entity but that's in discussion of possibility sure over comments questions from the public none are there to continue I move that we continue miscellaneous application MS-1803 of Elizabeth Pierce to August 21st we continue this to August 21st all in favor say aye thank you thank you very much next on agenda continued final application SD-18 I've cut about Middlebury LLC to re-subdivide 2 lots of 2.9 acres and 12.2 acres 1795 Stelman Road and 68 Nesty Drive who is here for the applicant the applicant has requested continuation to December 4th they have they have schedule the time to present the planning mission request for a zoning change and they want to allow time for that to play out I move that we continue final application SD-18 of Catamount Middlebury LLC to December 4th we continue this application December 4th all in favor say aye and opposed I'm recused on this one so I don't know if that's not present or an abstention it's not present next on the agenda continued sketch plan application SD-18 of Dorset Metals Associates LLC to subdivide 2 existing parcels totaling 71.9 acres and developed with 1 single family dwelling into approximately 126 lots for the purpose of a 164 unit residential planned unit development the planned unit development is consist of 113 single family homes 18 units and 3 unit multifamily dwellings 32 units in 2 family dwellings and 1 existing family home at 1505 Dorset Street and this is a continued sketch plan so this is a non-binding deliberation and it looks like we have a couple of people who need the keys take care so we have a quorum 4 out of 7 so because Mark is on the phone one of the purposes of continuing the hearing is to allow continued public comments we are going to ask the members of the public please approach the microphone up here and speak into the microphone so that the person on the phone can see and hear you clearly and before you speak please identify yourselves very good and to repeat the sketch plan application is a non-binding application preliminary and final plan applications will be binding but the sketch plan application is just to find out where within the land development regulations the project sits in the 3 branches of government we are the judicial branch we do not have the power to change the land development regulations so we simply have to say does the project do the projects that come forward to us fit within the LDRs the legislative branch that sets the LDRs themselves is the planning commission and the city council so we simply have to abide by the LDRs as they exist now so if you have comments it's helpful if you keep your comments to things that we have actual authority over so as you well the first thing that's going to happen is the applicant is going to list out some changes that they've made to the project in response to some comments that were made last time I'm also going to read a letter from Daniel Seff I'm not going to read the whole letter but I'm going to pick up some high points from Daniel Seff who is representing a group of neighbors called SAVE OUR SPACE south Burlington SAVE OPEN SPACE SAVE OPEN SPACES SAVE OPEN SPACES south Burlington so I'm going to read some high points from that and so then when we get into public comment because we had extensive unlimited public comment last time we're going to limit public comment to two minutes per person this time and we're going to ask that if you have something to say that's already been said and from Miranda's article in the other paper we've got ten issues that have been covered so if you have one of these comments to repeat simply say wetlands me too, traffic me too I'm also concerned about wildlife so because we heard a lot about these last time so we don't need to hear about them again they have been they're on the record so if you have a sketch plan again you can come back and preliminary and final plan application and make the same comments there more extensively to get them on the record and I would just add that if you don't have the opportunity to speak or don't want to speak tonight or think of something that you didn't say we read every single letter that comes to us we honestly do every single one of us so please feel free to submit comments or indicate instead of very good so let us start with a review of the revisions you've made through the plan on the screen we're looking at the 72 acre parcel last time we were proposing a 12 of 164 units there were some comments from the board about some of the interior green space and transportation quarters looked a little bit cramped so we reworked the layout we eliminated three of the lots on the inside and opened up some of the space in addition since our last meeting we did meet with public works fire department you know police we had the review that went fairly well the fire chief asked that we widen the through lanes on the middle of Boulevard I think we had him at 9 feet before he requested that they go to 10 feet so we've made that change we also talked about adding bump outs or narrowing the road at this intersection we added them to this intersection this intersection and basically all the intersections now have those bump outs to try to control the speed through it other than that we talked to public works about whether or not we needed a pump station they would prefer to see us fill this portion of the road to get the sewer to go grab rail way back to the existing pump station we should be able to accommodate that we had some comments from the storm water engineer we should be able to accommodate him overall police and fire seemed fairly happy with the layout that we had if you could switch to maybe one of the other exhibits the only thing we wanted to mention there was a little bit confusing let's go to the last one so the project site is 72 acres but it actually involves the current number of units proposed a total of 134 and a half acres because we need to purchase development rights to develop this parcel as shown and essentially we need to purchase the development rights from additional 62.5 acres of offsite land so the map is to scale so when you look at the total development you can see that yes we are developing a lot of units but we are creating and preserving a lot of open space in fact of the 134 and a half acres that are involved will end up with 94 open acres so 70% of the project will be dedicated open space that will contribute to the open space plan of South Burlington only approximately 30% of the parcel will end up being developed and we didn't include any of the green space inside we just included the big chunks of green space when doing that computation so I have a request that we preserve a little civility that we preserve some politeness when someone is talking just let them talk don't interject please 70% is the land itself not with the TDRs included correct? No that would include so when you add the two parcels together it comes up to 134 and a half acres 70% or 94 of the acres will end up being open space including the 62 acres that you would acquire in TDRs Can I ask a question? Go ahead Mark. I disagree with the way you're using these calculations for open space but we've never considered the additional land where your TDRs can be purchased from as any sort of calculation or for size of parcel or amount of space being TDRs are a mechanism that allows you to increase your density in ascending this to where you're receiving this trip so I recognize the exhibit but I don't think it's holding personally any delimity and we're looking at the parcel on the right with the current mind opinion as what we're looking at is open space not the block of 62 and half acres offsite where you're getting your density for your TDRs we have approximately 31 acres of green space so 31 of the 72 remains as open space or green space plus the 62.5 acres now I realize that's an unusual calculation but I've also been involved with site of mill 2 and at the state level at the act 250 level act 250 recognizes that the parcel that you're transferring rights from are also involved lands they will be part of the act 250 permit that's how it was dealt with at site of mill 2 so at least on some permitting level they are considered involved lands as you go forward staff have a... go ahead Mark say it again Mark right to increase the density on this parcel and it's the whole reason behind it the density and receiving district by conserving lands and extending so I mean it's a diagram but I don't think it's anything that we need to have any discussion about the percentage of development overall site size, how much land is being developed we're looking at the parcel on the right and facts you know for the open space is that and the development is that but the diagram on the left of 62 and half acres project it's a mechanism it's not an even will type of thing it's how you're doing the thing on the right yeah I was going to say that the staff has a consistent pattern of not including that so as we in our permitting go through this process we won't include that I don't believe right it's intended to be a tool exactly as Mark says essentially in the staff level discussion it's not a as Mark described it's not a added thing that they're doing it is an acknowledgement of this is the property and this is how the density is moved from one area to another yep okay continue that's really all we had just a few minor changes great so I will read oh yeah board do you have any questions comments on the changes you know one thing that I know we're still at sketch but really what we're doing at sketch is sort of saying if during once we close catch get during preliminary and final improved through the technical review and the initial studies and the technical review we impose on the project but you can do it this is what we're asking you saying that you know I guess the blessing but it's not decision blessing the comments of the last meeting weren't clear or I wasn't clear in looking at this site plan with green space but I really and as I said in the first week I actually like the actual overall layout of the development you know the way the smaller blocks on the interior of the binary single family owns on the outside makes us a multi-family and then the boulevard is the view of the canvas up it's actually in architectural master planning site planning standpoint they well laid out site but in looking at this from a pure diagrammatic standpoint even with a bunch of green space connectivity it's like they're broken up and I know you're not going to replicate wild-eyed corridor past we tried to massage these to get some green space connectivity not little slivers that go through the site and comment going forward that I really want to see you know some real green space connection between the open space meadows and open space a wet land and slivers that run through and I'd like to see an actual server effort to make that sort of as a green connection yeah I see what you're saying but I'd like to see it broken up by just the roads not move along I personally would like to see an actual green connection between the two major open spaces on the site okay we understand what you're saying yeah that's a good comment I see what you're saying Mark and I agree yet connecting the green space in the west yeah see you'd like to see some connection from the green space here all the way through at some place to the open space here obviously you got to cross a few roads but yeah we should be able to accommodate my comment is and we this might be ground we already retread but you know I see the two exits you got to have the two exits but it's on the same street is there's just no way to get to no we're talking with the state and the Army Corps in order to get this wet land crossing approved but that would basically just take us to this property line we don't control either of these two properties so at this point in time we have no way to get across and no connection to the south correct no correction to the south you know obviously if there's a calamity on the connecting street you know you'd like to have another exit but you're locked in there and that crossing that Paul just pointed out is an existing driveway crossing right so it's not a that's the most likely opportunity for crossing in that area the wetland is further to the south of that an undisturbed wetland if there were a crossing that's the place to do it okay Jennifer any comments so before we open it to the public I will just highlight a few items from Mr. Sefs Daniel Sefs letter to us first of all he encourages us to hold the wetland hearing in advance until the environmental court decision in the Snyder group hold for the okay next comment from Mr. Sefs is that actually the second comment from Mr. Sefs is exactly yours Mark that the overall maximum residential density can't use the acreage from just the TDRs the group submits that it's illogical and unreasonable for the DRB to slice the side setback requirement in half for the purpose of cramming in discretionary TDR this is not a binding forum this is a sketch plan but let's get a sense of the board do we agree or disagree that waiver should 10 feet to 5 feet is okay or bad personally I would like to see more space but it's not unheard of that we've waived it before so you'd like to see more space but it's not unheard of and Matt it's not a go ahead Mark could you hear that Mark he said yes they are as you said they're only for the small interior life some are 5 some will stay 10 which is consistent with what we've done in previous projects right and I'm in favor of the reduced setback because it will create more of a village feel more of a neighborhood feel which is the purpose of the anti-sprawl development and so on that I am a fan of and then the other comment Mr. Seth is a continuance of agricultural uses or enhancement of wildlife habitats in such plans for use of maintenance is encouraged which would I believe that this right that this so the rest of the point is that TDR should not be used at all but that we should stick to 1.2 units per acre 5 units per 4 acres and so do we agree or disagree with the use of TDRs to increase density in this space sir the current rules and we're playing we're calling balls and strikes based on the way the game is set up if the courts rule that the TDRs are illegal then everything changes but until that time TDRs are part of our plan okay so thanks very much to Mr. Seth and Save Open Spaces South Burlington Group for submitting the letter but we politely declined to agree so now looks like we lost Mark we'll just get to the fun part Mark Mark is important because we need four so we'll wait for Mark back once we get Mark back we'll open up the public comment again comments held to two minutes each the comments that we've already heard are density wildlife yes you're saying that we can't say that we're density or wildlife can you make sure there isn't a poem right now so there's no meaning just so we know how we're going to approach a discussion with our community so those comments have already been made and so it would be a waste of our time, all of our time to restate the ten minutes that some people took it would be a waste of the two minutes that we'll have now to simply say boy the wildlife is there I'm going to take my whole two minutes I'm going to say the wildlife is great the wildlife is great the wildlife is great the wildlife is great it would be a waste of everyone's time to say that again so I've got ten comments here discussion yes there's a lot of ways that's why Charlie's here so this is on channel 17 oh a new code if you go to cctv.org and basically just so you go to youtube and click the date of the meeting so the last meeting's date was July 17th and today's date will be the second one where these films will be on youtube that's the easiest way to do it because otherwise it gets complicated I'm just confused because some of those things are pretty important and because they were discussed once you're saying they cannot be brought up again yes I am because this body is a judicial body we hear evidence and at sketch plans it's non-binding and so we hear evidence and once we've heard that wildlife is a concern we agree you many people feel that wildlife is a concern we have as you heard Mark and Matt just asked for more wildlife corridors to be established understood but for example I'm just trying to note so what I can talk about with the only 120 seconds I get so density was a thing but I've read the LDRs and we're over density already so I can't bring that up again you'll give you two minutes to talk about whatever you want and if it's not enough time you can submit something in writing you'll absolutely read it and take it out you can say whatever you want but I would request that we not say again that's a very different way of saying don't bring it up I would prefer not to talk about it it's not the same as deaf ears Mark you're back on no we're having a technical difficulty with the speakerphone so that we can do that so it'll be by telephone but not by video is that a quorum then? we need a fourth person Bill could you have the gentleman introduce themselves the speakers Paul Ulari Peter Kahn with Dorset Beadows Jesse Horvath with T.J. Boyle Associates No Mary we're going to call on himself using this patient I'm going to put it here so it doesn't pre-interference with the microphone I'm going to do while I bring this one out of the middle because that's how Mark hears the audience could just go low tech you tell me Mark just 2-3-8 please do not have to tilt up and down up and down hang on just a second Mark get some gaffers taped there Charlie can we tape that down just so Bill doesn't have to get carpal tunnel holding that down can you hear us okay you're back to a quorum okay thanks for joining us again Mark the 10 topics that have been discussed already are density, wildlife, building height, storm water runoff use of pesticides, animal safety, traffic, pollutants changing the character of the neighborhood so to your point if you would like to take 2 minutes and say that again I can't stop you but I would request that those points have already been made and we will have if the application goes forward we will have preliminary and final plat at which you can say those again so please raise your hand identify yourself and come up to the microphone and talk my name is Andrew Chalmick so on one hand I probably have the least standing here I've only been a resident of South Burlington for a week we've had our house for a number of years on the other hand we just moved from New Jersey and the reason we moved is because the zoning laws ruined New Jersey every little piece of land that could be developed was developed and it's just not really a lot of it's not a great place to live and so I have that perspective to bring and I guess I just kind of urge you as you consider this application I know you've considered already a few of the points that Dan Seff made in his letter but if I can take some of my 2 minutes just to repeat them so Dan points out that the TDR bylaws are discretionary you don't have to provide all the density that a TDR can bring and I just urge you to exercise that discretion in a way that preserves the character of this neighborhood and preserves and addresses all the issues that I know that you just went through quickly so that South Burlington doesn't become New Jersey honestly it breaks my heart having just moved here and seeing this right next door broke my kids heart when they heard about it and if I can just make an emotional plea to exercise discretion in a way which preserves the character as much as possible I was nominated to go through this application on behalf of our attorney who couldn't be here tonight but I think you addressed the open point so I won't waste your time again with that thank you very much. Thank you very much Andrew. Next. My clock here so I don't waste my time or yours a lot of the things that were discussed tonight that we were asked not to repeat are critical to me and I think very important to the community today and he reminded me of the time I grew up and the time that I grew up in did exactly what you're doing developing everything these TDRs come on stop it's all going to be developed the house I grew up in the property value increase and increase as a community grew and then stop it plaid toad today with what it was 15 years ago who's going to want to buy a 25 year old house when every house in South Brompton is 25 years old or 30 or 40 or 50 what you're doing to the community is not a service to us it's not helping us building everything just because you can and they're not going to keep going up in value they're just not and I've seen you Matt I know what side you're on and what you think I mean you, I feel like the DRB is pro development period, period I don't think that you're doing it in a bad way or I think you're doing it in a bad way I don't think you're doing it meaningly or maliciously I think this is what you believe and I'm telling you the community does not agree. Bill is this a good time to point out that changes can be made through the planning commission we're just interpreting the LDRs? We're investigating all of that I've read it we've read the first development review board. No, no, no, I was mostly heard. Sorry. My name is Daryl and Peters and I am one of the clients of Daniel Seff so I just want to clarification this is July 17th was the first time I've ever been to a DRB meeting this is all new I'm trying to educate myself and what surprised me is when you said you're in the wrong meeting you're in the wrong room to everybody and I thought oh I really don't understand this process so I've been reading the plan and trying to do all of these things and relying on a lawyer who knows more and I'd like to go back to Daniel's letter on page two the third paragraph just so that you can tell me if that is your understanding as he has presented it to his clients which is when he says that LDR 9.13c12 which provides that if certain criteria are met the DRB may approve all or a portion of an applicant's requested TDR based density. In other words the DRB may not must not shall not should but may approve all some or none of the requested TDR density increase is he correct I'll rely on staff for that I'll rely on staff to answer that question the interpretation that the board has historically made on this subject is that the may is an output so if a property for a variety of reasons is there's all sorts of things that regulate the development or property the presence of wetlands, the maximum height of buildings the types of buildings etc etc where the requirements for open space streets all those kinds of things where those things lead to a property having a certain total number of dwelling units then that is the number of TDRs that the board transfers that is not automatically necessarily always the absolute maximum I don't believe in this case for instance the applicant is even seeking the maximum so that's the may is the board has interpreted that as being that's an output of all of the standards that determine the appropriateness for housing and or other development on a particular site that it's not a discretionary decision of its own it's an output of all the other standards that come through but I do confirm that in the LDR as it says the development review board may approve a PUD application 913C1 yes the PUD may approve a PUD application and in section 2 if the conditions of 933C1 above our met the development review board may then approve the assignment transfer of all reports that are residential development density calculation etc so it does in fact use the word may so we do confirm it has some discretion here when you said you're in the wrong room there's nothing we can do sort of our hands are tied we just we listen to staffs interpretation or explanation of the LDRs and that's it but it sounds like there's a range it could be 1.2 units or if you do the offsets it could be 4 units it could be up to 8 but there is discretion there not or so to defend my fellow board member Frank was not here who made that comment perhaps that was a bit too abrupt what he meant was I think what Frank meant was when he's talking about whether or not you can have development here or not have development here that's decided by the planning commission in the land development regulations what we're doing here is trying to determine whether or not that can fit whether density through the purchase of TDRs makes sense in this location right we cannot deny development because the land development regulations allow for it right so what we're trying to do quantity of what we're trying to do is get the best possible project approved if it can be approved right but this is just sketch right so what happens after sketch is we provide feedback to the applicant the applicant can take that feedback not just from us but from all of you because this is just if we can speak for more than 2 minutes they'll get feedback from us let's be honest this doesn't feel like democracy in this room right now this might help with the process though you're getting this all at once but it's a lot I get it's a lot but this is just the beginning of the process here for us they're getting feedback from us they're getting feedback from you they have to then go back to the books before they come up with the preliminary plat and come up with the design that they're going to propose and we'll still be under oath and we'll have to explain exactly what they're going to do if we approve that if it goes to final plat then you have the opportunity as has happened in other developments in South Burlington and all across Vermont which you have the opportunity to object to our decision whatever that decision is as the applicant as the opportunity to object to our decision in environmental court and that can go to Supreme Court there are several stages in the process we're just in the beginning here we're not going to prove anything tonight we're just here to hear what they have to say and we want to hear what the neighbors have to say this is a big important project with a beautiful piece of land and it feels like you're really getting up and I know you have lots of other work to do it's not like you can't set this aside and wait for the environmental court and do the 800 other things that you're doing updating your LDRs etc thank you very much the comment about going to the planning commission has to do with the comprehensive plan and rezoning the density of the whole area not necessarily just the TDRs and stuff that's all right very much thank you next yeah identify yourself I hope this is two minutes okay I wrote down a number of things here that I wanted to speak about again they may or may not apply say your name please I'm sorry Bob Brinkerhoff I'm a landowner on the Nolan farm road 15 shade drive the city plan in 2016 has already exceeded its resident call and the plan is clearly focused on the city center for more affordable housing the developers are focusing on more expensive housing in rural areas more profitable and they don't make a lot of money when they sell affordable housing so it's contrary to the city plan the city plan is in conflict with this so we recommend that all development until the city plan gets reviewed should cease and they should review the plan because the plan is out of whack right now okay that's number one okay who is running this town sounds like the developers are running this town not the people not the homeowners I can assure you if you had a vote the homeowners versus the few people that are trying to develop this town fill all the land up with houses and pack them in they would lose the town is not representing what the people want in this town they want to preserve development with nature and they're filling all the remaining land that's available in South Burlington with as many houses as they can put in and everybody seems to be going along with it like it's no big deal okay traffic it's a big issue that hasn't really been talked about you've got these two roads well it really hasn't been addressed because I've been watching Nolan farm road in Spear and Borson 300 cars pouring out on the Nolan farm road the people in the town homes and schoolhouse villa how they're going to get out of their driveway during rush hour okay and then you're going to have to have a traffic light and you're going to have cars packed up there trying to get on Dorset from Nolan farm road and the other way on Spear Street which is already a lot of traffic you're going to have people trying to get out there so what's going to happen we talked about this all the side streets all the shortcuts all the residential communities vehicle veil four sisters they're going to be shortcuts so cars aren't going to want to get in line to get on Spear Street now they're going to start cutting through all the residential shortcuts and coming out on Spear and then you have the bikers and you have the joggers and you have the walkers okay I've seen these on Dorset and I've seen them on Spear and on Nolan farm road who's going to get killed who's going to get hurt is that one we finally recognize as a traffic problem there's a way to something happens there's definitely going to be a traffic problem with all those cars pouring out Nolan farm road and that should not be ignored by the planning commission by you or whatever thanks very much okay and just to address your traffic issue there will be a traffic study and this type of project at this large but the impression I've gotten is oh it's no big deal just a bunch of cars going on the road it's a lot of cars going on the road okay thank you John esteemed member of the development review board but also clearly recused and clearly recused yes recused yes John Wilking I have only one comment which is when this project was brought forward initially to planning and zoning it was actually quite a bit smaller and I believe it was planning and zoning that encouraged it to enlarge so I only point out that it can be smaller and the developers actually brought something smaller I'd appreciate it being smaller Peter Bernhardt 103 old school house road I want to just focus in not on the whole scale of this project but really scalability in terms of sensibility and rationality and particularly what struck me about this proposal was the four big structures along Nolan farm and I don't think I understand quite yet how big those structures are how many units I've heard through four to five units in each structure so 16 to 20 units that little spit of land is in the flood plain next to the wet land I don't know how you're going to build those structures I don't know if they have basements I don't know if you're going to bring an extra fill I can tell you this they're going to cast shadows on Nolan farm it's going to be really an interesting transition for people whether it's bikers, runners or people even in cars becoming down Nolan farm and besides seeing the two roads coming into Nolan farm but to see these structures within 15 feet of the road it's like it doesn't make any sense so what I'd like to at least ask you to consider or you may is really use some sensibility I witnessed actually just now a discussion about connecting the green spaces with Mark and actually I saw some discretion and some nods that said yes you can do that so you're making some judgments I'm just saying in terms of this little microcosm of this development those are just completely out of whack and it has struck me I haven't heard anyone on the DRB use some sensibility other than it's just the number of units we can put on this piece of property that piece that little piece there just is so it's so out of whack with what this really should be in terms of Nolan farm and I just wanted to just put that out there to consider that the second piece even as you drive down to Butler farm and you have the development in the back is you've got homes actually right where it dumps out on Nolan farm to the west access road let's say it that way and maybe perhaps having this set back away from Nolan farm that is a beautiful beautiful pastoral road with the golf course to the north and it's used a lot by all the residents thank you Hi I'm Louise Hammond I'm also a client of Danny Seft and I've been a resident of South Burlington for about 20 years and I'm also a member of the South Burlington Land Trust and I'm a land abutter. Last time I reported about the 84 different species bird so I'm me too on everything that's been said so far but I wanted to just point out last time I mentioned that there were 440 homes for sale in Chittenden County that was the July 17th meeting and 112 of those homes were in South Burlington as a 6 o'clock today there are now 442 homes for sale in Chittenden County and 140 of those are for sale in South Burlington so there's 28 additional homes for sale in just this short time so I went to the O'Brien farm and first time saw everything that was cut down and I spoke with the realtor and she told me they've only sold 2 properties since March 2 properties in 6 months and they're gonna build and build and build they have a handful of deposits on others so you know I'm all for the open spaces I'm not only against this but any development in South Burlington because as I mentioned the first time you're changing the feel of this town of South Burlington and you know this looks a whole lot different than it did last time I don't know why they didn't put the houses on every spot like it was before just to show that they reduced it by 3 is not even a big deal you know and yes about the wildlife you cannot build another deer you can't make another bird once you clear all those trees out and you pave over all their homes it's extinguished and it's too late and it is too late for O'Brien farm that's a big mess but it's not too late for this and I think we really need to hear what the residents are saying and yeah on the comprehensive plan they projected 18,000 by year 2025 we're already at 19,000 seven years early and I know that's just your guideline but it's way off so you know it's just a mess because we don't need it there are more homes for sale in South Burlington than any other town and the prices it can't be two minutes already no the prices of the homes that are for sale if you go on realtor.com or Zillow prices are all being reduced on the houses that are for sale in South Burlington currently in this range thank you very much please back and then you Cindy Bernhardt I live in the old school house yes to everything that's in the other paper I just had a couple quick points first of all I agree with this gentleman over here less would be more I think for all of us it's crazy that it's gotten to however many units it is now it would be great if it could be 40, 50 if we have to have development it could be 40, 50 that are really quality and well scoped and placed and just it would make so much more sense. What Peter was talking about with the multifamily units that go along right along Nolan farm also in addition to that if you look at the plan the detached garages that go along with that you've got a lot of that's a lot of buildings to look at in a very small piece of land and just the aesthetics of that make me my head spin and it would seem like there that whole piece could be rethought particularly about the multifamily units I was here at the last meeting and I remember the discussion about how wonderful the views would be from this particular development and I think that just from a practical standpoint as you drive down Nolan farm if you try to image what it would be like to still see camels hump over all the rooftops I think that would be a very I'm not quite sure that's taken into consideration to this gentleman's point about the two roads that are going to exit off into Nolan farm I'm not sure it's a four-tenths of a mile space that that's in that is a lot of cars coming out you wonder about the backup into the development itself then you think about old school house the traffic that exists now that's going along Nolan farm right now it seems to me if you extrapolate this forward that the quality of the pedestrians viewer experience and going along Nolan farm would be akin to what's on swift street now yes there's a bike path there but wow there's a lot of traffic and it's not exactly a quality experience I know I always look forward to getting out of that part of the loop and going back to Nolan farm because it's quieter thank you very much hi Alice and Chal Nick just moved here a week ago with my husband Andrew my family I just want to say that I'm living under and I literally can't believe I packed up my family after 20 years to move to this beautiful state to now have to face this right next to my house it's very disheartening for me as a mother and I'm just very concerned about the safety of my children I'm assuming that there must be a bus stop somewhere on Nolan farm road where my children are and other people's children of course are going to be waiting for the bus already this winter there was an accident coming from Spear street to Dorset coming around the bend by my house a young lady hit an icy patch and crashed into our fence so I'm assuming with an increase of traffic there's going to be an increase in danger to children waiting outside on the bus amongst all the other things and just makes me very sad I never thought I would see this in Vermont and I really hope that you consider all the beautiful space and the wildlife and traffic and safety and children when you make your decision thank you next my name is Denise Olsky and I agree with what everyone has said and I agree with you because I am from Bucks County Pennsylvania and what they have done to that is a disgrace and I don't think anybody in this room wants that to happen here but I came to the board about a year ago and asked why is the density equation different for the southeast quadrant that it includes the wetlands when relating to density I was told at that meeting that you were going to look into it so I'm curious did you? I came and sat here and asked this board and I think Paul answered my question why is the density in the southeast quadrant the equation different from other parts of south Burlington and why are wetlands included in that equation? So I think that the question is when looking at density in the southeast quadrant whether the land is wetlands or it's developable land it's considered part of the density calculation one clarification it's the same rule across the entire city so it does it's the same application throughout the entire city as a clarification are some other communities that calculated differently but in south Burlington whether it's the southeast quadrant or any other part of the city it's part of that calculation and that's been the determination in the rules of the planning commission and the city council but that was supposed to be addressed that some answer was supposed to be found at why you do include the wetlands my other question about the traffic I know you're not allowed to say traffic but who pays for the study the developer so would I suggest that they pay for it but you select whoever does the study because obviously if they're paying they're going to get the result that they want one of the things that we can do is we hold the technical review of any traffic study or any other formal study that's done so I appreciate your comment I agree with your comment and do deal just needs to be done and it is done but if they're paying and they're choosing then if it smells bad we have it redone the applicant has a traffic study done the board has the authority to have a third independent body review that to confirm for the boards completely independent review as to whether they agree with the conclusions of the traffic. How many times have you gone to that third party review? Most large projects and the other thing is I'm wondering what is your goal is your goal to put a house or a building on every square inch in South Burlington? What certainly seems so every time you drive down the road there's another whole being dug and what is the process for the citizens to be really heard because I just feel like you are not very receptive to what the citizens feel. Thank you very much to that the planning commission the comprehensive plan the LDR's have maps that have been worked on for decades every five years they're updated there's a lot of citizen input to come in and to say we don't want or we do want development in these areas the maps that were shown earlier you had the map up there that shows complete LDR's. When is that five year period end? I believe it's an eight year cycle. It has been five years it is changing to an eight year cycle so it was just done in 2016 so the next time will be 2024. The planning commission gets started on that before that date. How do citizens like and I don't even live there I just ride my bike over there so I am concerned about the traffic but how do citizens make their wishes, concerns heard? If you wanted to change the town plan change the land development regulations you would talk to the city council you would talk to the planning commission and if you wanted to say no more houses, never more, never built in south Burlington that would be the forum where you would have that. You would have other people saying we need more affordable housing or we need more open space or we need more bike paths and the planning commission I used to serve on the planning commission in the town of Plainfield so I went through the process of hearing from I've never been on the planning commission in south Burlington but I understand the process of hearing the concerns from the public trying to incorporate that the town plan yet achieve the overall goals of the town. So the goal is to build every square inch that you can. There is a goal to increase density in certain areas of the town while preserving open space that is the stated goals in the land development regulation. This body is here to hear proposals and determine whether or not they fit into the land development regulations. The public still has a tremendous opportunity to affect change on the land development regulations through the planning commission through the city council and if the project that they view doesn't meet the standards that we've set to appeal to the environmental court or the supreme court. Thank you very much. Where do you get the equation changed at the planning? Planning commission. So in response to the point of are we going to put a house on every square inch of south Burlington. There are green spaces in this plan are the areas that are intended to remain open. The city has purchased the development rights. Vermont Land Trust has purchased development rights for many of the acres here. They are waiting for development for developers to come along and purchase them from them because they are cash out of pocket. The city is cash out of pocket. The first gentleman who was here described the extinction of the development rights. That means that somebody has to kiss those funds goodbye and it simply rolls into our tax burden which may be fine for a lot of people here but it's rough on a lot of people who aren't here. So the green areas are the areas that are intended to be preserved forever. The orange areas are to be developed at 4 units per acre. The brown areas, tan brown areas are to be developed at 8 units per acre and that little red area is a highly dense residential area as I understand it. Paul, Marla? A little commercial area, commercial and residential area. It's where the Mill Market in Delhi is. So not only does the green area include wetlands but the brown and orange areas include wetlands which cannot be developed and so the developers have to... A class 2 wetland? No, you can't build on a class 2 wetland. A class 3 wetland, a wet meadow? Yeah, you can build on that. A class 2. You've already spoken, right? I just want to add a comment. I want to ask the board here, the city plan says focus on city center and affordable housing. We have plenty of expensive housing that's not selling but what are we doing? We're focusing on rural development and on houses that are not... I understand your comment completely but again, if you want to focus the southeast quadrant, if you want to preserve the southeast quadrant, if you don't want any more development in the southeast quadrant, you have to change the land development regulations. We don't change land development. Why aren't they following the city plan? That's a question you should ask them. Thank you. You have to follow it too. Yeah, so that's what we're doing. Last comment I want to make, drive down Dorset, take a look at what they're doing to Dorset. It is god-awful, ugly what they're doing. It's ugly. It's worse than New Jersey. It's a pretty house, house, house. Just drive down Dorset, pure cons development. Take a look at it. That's what we're going to get on this property. And I think you should say one thing. Five seconds. All this, this whole thing, this whole meeting, this whole conversation, one guy wasn't allowed to put in a little bathroom. You said that last day. One guy in a little bathroom. Each of you drive down Dorset. Okay, anybody else? Do I live? Yep. We got a little far back and then the lady in the front there. Yeah, that's you. You're the furthest back. I'm Michael Mittag and I live on Swift Street. Michael, what's your last name? I'm sorry? Mittag. M-I-T-T-A-G. You said that the board has some discretion when it comes to TDRs. I'm wondering what criteria you are going to use to decide whether to use your discretion in favor of the hundreds of people who are opposed to this development versus the three people who are sitting here. What criteria will you use to decide how to use your discretion? So, Paul described it earlier. I'm Michael. I'm sorry, Matt. I just said thank you for his question. Yes, thank you very much. Paul described it earlier. The criteria will be if they put no more than four units per acre because it's mostly the orange area, but there is a brown part of the area where they can put eight units per acre. And so the plan that they've come forward does meet the criteria for development and density in that area as per the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations. And then so there's, I mean, there's the whole how fat is the book? The book is pretty fat of land development regulations and they have to meet all of those conditions in there. And if they do, those are the criteria that we will use to say, will we allow the TDRs to be transferred? Discretion. We do have discretion, yes. Do you exercise these in conflict here between I would like this conflict here between the residents who are opposed to this development and would be not satisfied, but would be much happier if there were no TDRs on this property, which would mean 60 instead of 160 units. Are you going to use your discretion in favor of them or in favor of the developer? That's my question. And how do you, how are you going to decide that group? Thank you for that question. Hi, I'm Barbara Service. I'm probably the only person here who doesn't live in the southeast quadrant. However, I walk there. I am a long distance walker. I live on Patchin Road and I walked to this property to see what it looked like recently. It's about 12 miles round trip. And I got out to that part of the country, part of our city that's beyond Wheeler Park and went, this is paradise out here. And I got to Nolan Farm Road and I went, they can't. They aren't really. I am assuming, and I could be wrong because I don't usually come to these meetings. I go to the city council regularly, but DRB and Planning Commission are new things to me. However, I am assuming that this is the group that I should hold responsible for that horrible mess that's called O'Brien Farms. And it is absolutely an outrage. And you are about to do the same thing here. And so I would plead that if you're going to do this, go back to what he was talking about, maybe 60 properties. Do something about the green space. That's not green space. That's trying to convince us that's green space. And I would also add a comment because I'm sitting hopefully on a new committee. Where are the dogs going to be? Is there a dog park in there? Is there a place that they can be? Away from the wildlife so you don't scare the deer and you don't scare the turkeys and you don't scare the birds and you don't have the neighbors screaming at you about the dogs in their backyard. But that's, we've talked about the kids. We've talked about the cars. We've talked about not enough space between the houses. We also need to talk about the dogs. But I hold you responsible for O'Brien Farms. And I beg you not to let that happen in this city that you've only been here 12 years. But it's home for me. And I am a, let's see, naturally occurring retirement community. I'm here. And I plan to leave here in maybe 20 years in a box. And so I would ask you to not ruin the city that I have come to love. And to really think about what we've already done with that one project and let us not repeat that horrible accident that occurred. Thank you. My name is Sarah Dopp, President of the South Burlington Land Trust. The last lady who spoke was wonderful. She said it all. What I would like is actually a request and maybe since these folks have map makers at their discretion, it would be very helpful to me to see an overlay, almost like two maps with a transparency or something that could fold down over this that would show me what portions of this are the brown eight units per acre portion. What portions are the four per acre portion and which portion is the natural resource. Kind of an overlay on this. So I can just kind of see how this lies on the land. And then also indicate on that overlay where the stream runs. And note that our own map revised just two years ago does speak to the fact that there's a 500 year floodplain right down through the middle of this somewhere and that's what I want to know kind of right where it is. And also endangered species are noted on our own map revised two years ago. So it just doesn't bode well in addition to the other things that have been said about wildlife and water. I think all of us watch the water spread across this field and other locations this spring when it was so wet. Of course we don't have that condition right now, but we did a few months ago. Thank you. I was looking for that map in the last I thought we saw a map. Somebody had a map like that that had the overlay that showed this green area being part of the green part of the LDR map, but we'll figure it out. We'll come up with that. Yeah, essentially the line is right here. Yeah, it's in the green area on the map. In terms of the 500 year floodplain, essentially the 50 foot buffer pretty much is the 500 year floodplain. So the back of these logs here are all outside the current 500 year floodplain's map. Well we all know that the floodplain activity and climate changes making things worse progressive in 20 years this might be a brighter picture. We've got another uphill on your hands. Okay, thank you very much. Next. Yes. Good evening. My name is Roseanne Greco. I live on Four Sisters Road. I'm page 140 of your LDRs in the purpose statement under the southeast quadrant you say. A southeast quadrant district SEQ is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture and well-planned residential use in the area of the city known as the southeast quadrant. The natural features, visual character and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in the city and worthy of protection. And then you spend the rest of the chapter describing how you'll destroy it. In this document that you have to go by in your first paragraph, you're charged with preserving this. In the comprehensive plan you can read over and over how we want to preserve our world spaces. The city prepared an open space plan back in 2002 that talked about preservation of the exact area we're talking about developing. The people want to preserve it. If you took a vote, the people would vote to preserve the world spaces. We've taken surveys in the past, the people overwhelmingly say the preservation of our open spaces are in the top two priorities for our city. Quality schools is generally number one and preserving of open space is generally number two. I know you're a quasi-judicial board but you do have latitude. The TDRs allow you to do that. That's one of the latitudes you have. You do not have to automatically approve every single thing that the developer wants or the maximum. You go instantly to the maximum. And just because you did it someplace else doesn't mean you gotta do it here. We didn't go immediately to the maximum. You just did. Our lawyer just said you may. You said we're not even going to discuss that. We're in sketch. We haven't deliberated. I know we're in sketch. We did not propose this. You didn't approve any but are you going to? Your comments tonight. We didn't propose this project. We didn't propose this project. Four people here that are on the board did not propose this project and we did not propose to go to the max. We are here to listen to the landowner's proposal for his land. We're here to listen to the community's response to that proposal and that's where we are in the process. There's no pre-decision plan to be made. Let's not jump to that conclusion. I'm just saying when our lawyer suggested that you defer this and that if you do decide in TDRs you don't automatically go to the max which I think you do all the time. Have you ever ever not approved the maximum that the developer has wanted? Yes. So thank you very much. So that was great. Spear medals was exactly a perfect example. Came in at I remember that. I remember that. 48, actually 46, 46 the first time like that. So thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Appreciate your time. The maximum density on this parcel is 267 units. 267 we're currently at 161. Long ways for the max. Just a correct record. We didn't propose that. Hi, my name is Dunia Partilo. I'm also a batter of the land and a client of Dunia Partilo. And also a client of Mr. Seves. It is really really sad to see many of us against this and only three people that want to develop this renders development, you know, breaking all of the arguments that have already been cited. It is also very sad that the SOS, I'm just gonna call it SOS because we are really in an emergency. And so it is sad that we have to hire a lawyer on our behalf to protect what the town should be protecting. And it costs a lot of money, but if we can afford it, we will fight all of us as residents. And we will bring you to court whatever is needed because I feel very strongly and I'm not alone. I mean it's not like something that each individual of us is coming up with these ideas. We do have good arguments and valid arguments that we put on your hands to make an informed decision and not only an informed decision, but a human decision as citizens of the land and of the world to make the world better. And this doesn't really align with those principles at all for what I'm hearing or what I can see. So I also plead to the committee to listen to the citizens, to the residents, to the people that we are strongly against this. Good evening. My name is Gary Rounds. I own the property at 1495 Doris Street which is pretty much in the middle of the west side of the development. Are all these going to be city streets if this gets approved? I'm surprised there's no cul-de-sac or whatever on the Doris Street entrance side plow trucks. I know the two streets coming in are very popular with the fire service. They want two streets coming into development for obvious emergency reasons. I understand that. I have a little bit of experience in that. The single street coming off Doris Street is kind of, like I said, I take it the cities will apply. The single street that comes off Doris Street here will remain private until which time if ever in the future it extends and connects back. So the remainder of the streets are all proposed as public. Obviously I'm not going to go over everything that everyone's repeated again and again and again. I've seen a lot of that out there. I have a little bit different perspective probably than most people in this room and the reason why is in the early 50s my parents bought a house on Dorset Lane which was this little dirt road where you go into the University Mall where Hanifords is. So obviously I grew up here. And I also worked for the city for 47 years so I have a little bit understanding of what's happening to the city and I've seen it firsthand obviously. I understand they make rules and if people follow them then it's kind of like the speed limit on the road and I understand that. It's a shame on where we're going because I think in a very new future all the DRBs will have to worry about is building height. Thank you. Thank you very much. The last time I was at one of these, not the last time, but a couple years ago that Lane project you kept saying how you the DRB kept saying how they did not want pocket neighborhoods and there's a neighborhood across the street on Dorset Street that was cited many times as we don't want more of this. Can you remind me of that neighborhood that nine houses are going down Dorset from the left hand side? Just north of the side. Well isn't that another one if it's going to remain private? Is that just another little pocket neighborhood? It's not connected? Well so it does have a street that goes to the edge of the property so it could be connected to the next property down. Just watch that. The other pocket neighborhood that we're talking about is right here across the street and I guess this is the Yonis and it's just not going to happen. You're talking about so many people that own these properties and I'm one of them. So you've got to put this in here and then you're going to have this little tray around and this is exactly what you said when you were doing the Lane property you didn't want. And you put it in another one right there. That's what you said at the Lane property fund. Thank you for your comment. Thank you. More. I think first of all I want to thank you guys for serving on the board. It's not always easy. I was on a different board for many years so thank you for that. And I appreciate the public not demonizing you guys. And on that point the public it is possible with the help of the board and technical review which is very important to make changes to preliminary sketch plans. For example if you look at the golf course originally they proposed building homes next to Butler Farms and for a variety of reasons one because the neighbors didn't like it and two because there's a lot of wetlands there that they weren't built there. So I encourage the public to continue their input with you in a respectful basis. I also encourage you guys to make extensive use of technical review because the current plan as I explained to the planning commission last week because of places like Butler Farm and Oak Creek Village we had the positive distinction and the negative distinction of being the first stormwater utility in the state. And this with climate change going on could become another liability for this city. And I'm not saying it is but I'm saying we need to be very careful given what's going on with climate change. July this past last month we had the hottest low temperature on record, 80 degrees I think on July 2nd. So that's on one end and the other end art shields myself. We live here we walk here all the time. It may flood already beyond the 500 year level. So I'm not for or against but we need to smartly consider how to do this. So thank you very much. Thank you very much. More comments? I have a quick question because I just wanted to get clarification on this. If I understood correctly Mr. Khan and I think Marla you and I had a phone conversation that the original proposal was for 60 homes but the city pushed and pushed and pushed. That's what I heard. So if the developer comes in with 60 homes and ends up with 161 buildings and talk about TDRs and 267 and you say well it could have been this but now it's only this. It seems very obvious that it's the city that wants this. Not even the developer. He proposed 60 homes. So it's the city and we're the citizens and I think you really need to listen to us. I can respond to that. The original, seeing our firms did the original sketch plans. We did a series of plans somewhere between 6 and 8 different plans. I think the smallest one we had was about 100 homes. We were never down at 60. I think we varied between 100 and 130 and they were mostly larger single family homes. Staff did encourage us to increase the density by adding all four print lots and by adding some town homes and changing the mix of houses that we had. So at that point in time we hired TJ Boyle to help us go forward with a greater mix of housing so we had more diverse housing types than just single family homes. The original sketches we did were more like side of middle one. This is quite a bit different. It does have more density than some of our original plans but easily we're still over 100 units below the maximum density that we're allowed on the market. Thanks very much. One comments please. Come up to the microphone. Yes please. My name is Beth Chang-Tolme. I live part time during the year on Old School House. I've never been to one of these meetings until the last meeting. I wish I'd gotten involved long, long before seeing another, yet another project. I am a native owner. I was born here. I've been raised here. I've seen all of the changes to our area and I just appeal to your sensibilities in terms of the scale. I don't envy the position you're in. I don't envy the position that we as neighbors as a walker. I can't even bike in South Burlington anymore because of the traffic, the road quality. It's really disheartening. O'Brien, as the woman said it's a travesty that's disgusting to the eyes and so I can't just stay silent which is my nature and I really, really appeal to some sensibility of where, where can you just rein it in before it's gone we know this. Thank you. Thanks very much. Hearing none, no reason to continue sketch plan. I think you have guidance. So any other comments before we close up? Mark? No. Okay, thank you very much. That's the end of the South Burlington Development New Board at 9.15. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.