 Welcome to South Billington Development Review Board for Tuesday, June 18, 2019, first item on the agenda, directions on emergency evacuation procedures from the conference room. If there is an emergency, these two doors here are probably the best to get out by and we should all meet in the South parking lot, which is right behind me, just to make sure everybody is okay if there is an emergency. Second item on the agenda, additions, deletions, changes in the order of agenda items, hearing none? If anyone is here for items 11 and 12, those applicants have requested to be continued. That's the Snyder-Reverman Development Company LLC application. So if that's what you're here for, you should come back. Okay. Do they have a date that they've requested? They have not. So if there's nobody here, we can discuss it later, but if people were here, we should know. I'm just saying if there was anyone here for that. No. No one raised their hand. Okay. Okay. Comments and questions from the public, not related to the agenda. If anyone has any comments or questions that are not related to the agenda, hearing none? Unannouncements. Number four. Jennifer. Yeah, I wanted to say thank you to Jennifer and Bill for their service. And I hope you have a great retirement. Thank you. Item number five, appeal number AO 1903 of Edward Holm III, appealing the letter of the administrative of officer regarding the expiration of subdivision approval SD 17-22 at 1700 Dorset Street. The applicant has requested continuation to July 16th. I'll entertain a motion to continue. And move that we continue the appeal of AO 1903 of Edward Hone the 3rd to July 16th, 2019. Second. And move in second. Do we continue this appeal rather? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstain. Thank you very much. Item number six, site plan application SP 19-14 and conditional use application CU 619-03 of ReArch company to amend a previously approved plan for 54,459 square foot general office building. The amendment consists of converting the use to commercial parking and vacant for the purpose of offsite storage of automobiles for sale on the existing north parking lot at 124 Technology Parkway who is here for the applicant. Andrew Dottolo, Trudeau Consulting Engineers. I am here on behalf of the applicant, which is ReArch company and the owner, which is 124, took down. Would you like a hand please? Do you promise to tell the truth or nothing about the truth on the penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you very much. Please explain what's going on. All right. So this. Oh, conflicts of interest. I apologize. Conflicts of interest. OK. All right. So this is after the fact application site plan and conditional use application for commercial parking at 124 Technology Parkway. It's lot one in Technology Park right along Kimball Avenue. They are proposing to use 100 spaces in the existing parking lot for commercial parking. It's parking of brand new Subaru vehicles. At the same time, they're proposing to change the current use of the building to vacant while they have those parking spots in use. And then when they finally fill the building, they will apply for another application to turn it back to office space. I'm sorry, Bill. I own across directly across the street. I should recuse myself. Thank you. John Wilkin recusing the film. Thank you. There's no proposed changes to the site. No proposed changes to buildings, landscaping, lighting, parking. They'll just be putting approximately 100 cars out there. The estimated trips are about 20 trips per week. They'll be moving potentially to two cars in and out a day. I'm not doing prime time. I'm not doing peak. No. Yeah, no specific time other than sometime between the 30 AM trips that were approved for the office building. So you've seen the draft decision? I have. I don't. I did want to just confirm that a zoning permit is necessary for this since there's no proposed changes to the site. The zoning permit is always needed to enact a change. Perfect. Comments, questions from the board? No. No. Comments, questions from the public? Hearing none, there's no motion to close. We close site plan application SB 1914 and conditional use application, CU 1903. Second. The move is out. We'll close this application on the table, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Upstain. Thank you very much. Thank you. Enjoy. Next item on the agenda, number seven, design review application, DR 1902 of After Midnight Corporation. You amend a previously approved master sign amendment, NSP. The amendment consists of allowing stainless steel as a lettering color and material at 150 Dorset Street. And I'll note that John Wilking rejoined the board. And I'll note that I'm going to recuse myself on this one too. My former company is the manager of the mall, and my former company still pays me, so I have talked with Mr. Sorry, I will step away again. All right, thanks, John. Who is here for the applicant? My name is Scott Richardson. I own After Midnight Jewelers. I've been in the University Mall for almost 30 years now. The rent has finally driven me out of that mall. I'm moving across the way. Who else is here? I'm Chris from Aero Light Construction. We're proposing to do the work in space. What's your last name? I'm from Aero, the last name, Flanigan, F-L-A-N-I-G-A-N. If you raise your right hand, please. Bomb shell with truth, hole with truth, nothing with truth, and a penalty of perjury. Any more conflicts of interest? OK. OK, so I own After Midnight Jewelers, and I've been in the mall for 30 years. I have a, and I'm moving across the street to the Blue Mall, right next to the UPS store. Used to be a place called Big League Haircutters. I have, in my place of business now, and have had for many years a beautiful stainless steel sign. I became aware of the sign ordinance for the Blue Mall specifically, and it doesn't allow for stainless steel signs. It says, specifically, all signs must be made out of plastic, and they be only one of three colors. I'm a fine jewelry store. I really don't want to have a plastic sign. I don't want to look like a toy store. I want to look like a fine jewelry store that I am. And yeah, I'm asking that amendment be made to the code to allow me to use my stainless steel sign there, which I can illuminate if illumination is an issue. With LEDs, as I've described in my application from behind, I can enclose it in a plastic box if plastic is like a necessary condition of signage. But I've been closed in my application pictures of my existing sign, and it's reconfiguration into the sign that I want to hang up there when I move in November. Have you seen the drive? A decision? Drive, not in receipt of that. I'm not in receipt of that. What would you like to do? So Scott, in your application, you indicated that these sign would be enclosed by a plastic box around and cover. So that's how I have drafted the decision. And then you had also said that the stainless steel letters would be backlit with LED. So that's also in the decision. Are those the things that you want to do or the things that you felt like you had to do because of the way that? I felt like I needed to have plastic in there, because it said all signs must be made out of plastic. So I include a plastic box. I don't have to have a plastic box. I would prefer just to have stainless steel letters, which are completely OK outside for the weather. And the LEDs are waterproof as well. Cool. Especially since if we remove the plastic box, we'd actually have to improve the space itself. The boards behind it are quite deteriorated and damaged. So he'd be bettering the building, putting it back to its standard original standings, not covering up the rot that's there. And all the holes from the previous businesses, we'd be fixing the siding. I contacted the landlord and had them take down the existing sign when I signed the lease. And in that signed space, there were 49 holes in the clavards. And I asked them, could you please fix it? So they quirked 49 holes for me. I kind of painted with a different color blue over them. So if you can look at the frame. That's what I'm working with. Delilah has up the draft decision, and it says where she's highlighted. So proposed modifications are to allow a sign with stainless steel letters backlit with LED. I would just propose that we remove the part that says enclosed in a plastic box around the cover. Sounds like a good idea. Yeah. Yeah. Especially. Can I ask a question, Mark? In regards to in lieu of doing the plastic box, which I agree, that doing just the stainless steel letters with LED backlight would look nicer. But in terms of fixing the actually painted that looks stained at this point, blue clavards, where would you sort of stop the restoration work to the area? Because then you don't want it to look like there's a box of corrected work. But how far out the gable, so it would also include repainting and correcting the work? The gable. The gable end would be painted. The whole gable would have to be painted, because you could never blend it. But the upgrade in the wood would pretty much stop in this, and where the sign was removed area. Obviously, we're not going to rebuild the building. I just want to make sure the least defined section is going to be restored and repainted. So it's not just the half of the gable, nice and clean. The other half doesn't. It should have some sort of consistency. So Mark, are you suggesting that painting the gable business be added as a conditional approval? The actual paint shell repaints the gable? I'm not sure, considering he doesn't control the whole building. But I'm wondering how are they going to sort of match the paint so it doesn't look like it's on box? Sure, and I think they're OK with doing that. My question for you, Mark, is whether we should amend the draft decision to include a condition to that effect. I think because the owner and the applicant of the building have to sign the application, the owner is beholden to what's in the decision and has allowed Scott and Chris here to be his representatives for the evening. So if that's what they're agreeing to as representatives of the owner, I think it's OK to put it in. Yeah, I think that's smart. OK. Yeah, OK. And you'll obviously have to do something nice because the gable doesn't go all the way down to the soil, so you'll figure something out. Without changing the architecture and blending and amazing fading, I've got an incredible painter on staff, so. Cool, cool. Yes, sir. I was just going to add the owner of the Blue Mall, there, Murph Brown. He's thrilled to have me as a tenant. I'm the highest class tenant he's ever had. He's bending over backwards for me to do things that I'm suggesting inside, so I'm sure if I told him we need that all fixed up, he's going to do that for me if we don't do it one way or the other. Cool, yeah. Great. Well, a high class jeweler is not going to leave funny looking pain on the front of the store. Exactly. I just have one question out of curiosity. Have you been in that space at hours when Pure Bar is in? Yes. Yeah, it booms in there. Yeah. Yeah, I'm a little concerned about that. I go to Pure Bar, so I just want to make sure. We're going to have Rowan Musick and he's going to do soundproofing on that wall. Yeah, we're soundproofing. Yes. Most of the construction is for sound. This base itself is going to be continual in the long space, but it's flooring, decorative, and sound. Lots of sounds. So I have to be aware. Other questions from the board? Other questions from the public? Hearing none, other than the motion to close. So the decision will be amended, as you specified, as they would be. Yep. I move that we close Master of Science Permit, DR-1902. Second. It's been moved in second. We'll close this application. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. And opposed. Thanks very much. Take care. Does that mean that a decision has been made or will be made? It will be made. And you'll notify me? Yep. OK, thank you very much. Thank you. Take care. Next item on the agenda, number eight, continued preliminary and final final application, SD-1911 of the city of Wellington, Billington National Aircraft, to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing 102 rooms, five toilets, and we'll give you to the southern end of this important building at 1200 Airport Drive. Who is your name? I'm going to stay here and come back. Hi, I'm here. My name is Greg Rabbeau. I'm from the Country of Arkansas. I'm just going to give you one of these shoes. Sorry for that delay. Again, my name is Greg Rabbeau from Rabbeau Architects, happily joined this evening by Chris Gendron from Stantec Engineering and Adam Portz from SC Group, our landscape architects. It's a beautiful night out. Have you been sworn in? I know you've been sworn in. You've been sworn in. Yeah, they've all been sworn in. Yeah, they've all been sworn in. Thank you very much. It's a beautiful evening else. I'm going to be as brief as I possibly can. Thank you. We have one issue of significance that was the reason we were continued to this evening. That was the quantification, valuation, and mitigation of the removal of existing trees that had previously been claimed for value on a prior project. So rather than read through the whole record on that, I'll just ask the chair if you would like direct testimony from either myself or from Mr. Portz about what's proposed and how it's done or do you want to go by it or do you feel up to speed on it? Two minutes would be good. OK. 20 seconds, two minutes. I'll invite Adam to lay out the nature of the settlement on this issue. Thanks, Greg. Thanks, everyone. Since our last hearing, we've worked with the staff to review the previous permitted plans back from 1998 and 2007, I believe it was, at original material that was installed and correlated with the existing survey plan. And it seemed in conversations with the staff that a reasonable approach was to replace that material at today's current market value of installation at the same size it was originally installed. So that's what we've done for 31 of the trees. There's two existing trees that were existing trees in the original permit. Those are now 20 inches in caliper and 14 inches in caliper. And for those two trees, we've proposed to replace those on an inch by inch basis, meaning if you total that up to 34 inches of caliper, we've replaced them with seven or two and a half inch trees. So it comes out to a total replacement value of $36,000 approximately in calculating what the existing trees that were originally planted as part of that original permit. And we've located those on offsite across the street between Elizabeth and Patrick Street to continue the kind of hedgerow and buffer planting that the airport has done on other projects. I'm good with the explanation. I'm good with the solution. Comments, questions from the board on this item? Only question I have is, I know that the offsite landscape buffer plan, and I agree with it. I think it's great to start doing this. My only concern is that at some point in time, I don't think it's been near future, but there's going to come a time when we're going to start looking at how we're going to develop that buffer zone with the airport. And are we going to then have to start considering elimination of all these trees and replace them as part of the down the road look? I mean, I know I don't want to call it kicking the can down the road, but if we're going to do this as offsite planting mitigation and buffer planting, which is great now, but how do we take it into account down the road when we start looking at what we're going to do with this buffer land? Well, that's for the airport to decide, right? In the first instance. OK, I just wanted to bring it up. I'm kind of proceeding with what I have here. And I think that the landscape plan they're proposing and the buffer planting is acceptable to me. And I think Mark has a great point. And I don't think it's as far down the road as people think. There are people looking at those, not these specific sites, but there are sites being looked at for development. So we may be seeing these in the next year. But at the same point, it's for them to solve. Of course. Of course. I mean, it's essentially a cloud on how they move forward. But it does cause some, as they push offsite, it does cause some, I don't know how you deal with it from a filing point of view, how you tie these additional parcels. You know, that's a good point. What are you going to record? I'm going to have to record the plan. So this is a subdivision application by virtue of being part of a PUD. There is no subdivision proposed. So in that instance, what is typically recorded is a site plan. I suppose what we'll do is we'll have them record the site plan proper and then sort of the zoomed out site plan that shows the other site that will be a two pager. Maybe you want to, maybe the board can include a condition for them to provide a mile hour without the aerial background to save everybody, you know, a couple hundred bucks in printing cast. Be happy to. Yeah. Satisfied? Yeah. As a condition, I like the condition. Next, staff comment. Stormwater section is conditional approval. You're fine with that, I'm sure. OK. One add-on item I put before you this evening, a following intended to illustrate a proposed alternative to the wooden fence around the cooling tower at the request of the airport. We're asking your indulgence in letting us change that to a brick wall with detailing as shown. They have a few of these around the perimeter of their garage and they'd like them all to be consistent and we're OK with that. Greg, I think this is a terrific change. A lot better than a wooden fence. Yeah. Thank you. Can I ask a question? Is the fence going to stay on the other side of the brick wall? Yeah, is it really that the wall is just a substitute for the fence? But, yeah, all the spruce trees and the other things shown would stay. Good. Nice upgrade. That's great. One more question from the board. One thing that I guess maybe I didn't really highlight but I thought I'd bring up is they've shown a plan showing the lease line. I just wanted to guide up before the pension because the applicant felt like the lease line needed to be part of the project documents. So that's in the packet. There's nothing we need to do. It's not a footprint lot. It's simply the line that the airport is leasing to BTV hotel and they wanted it to be part of the record. You show that page? Page one. This has tax implications, but I see no issue personally. Makes sense to you. OK. Comments, questions from the public? Very moving forward on this. I know it's a real challenge, but if they could find a spot for a couple of trees along the road, the access road, going in instead of across the, if it's reasonable to, then fine, it's not, we've spoken to it as far as the NRC, but we'd just like to see if we know that there's underground cables and all that. Appreciate that. But if they could just spot a couple in there, it would help. They'd break it up, go along the south side. There is some planning there that they're saving and all that too, so it's not a huge issue. It's just a comment. Thank you. Comments, questions from the public? Very none. In case most are closed. And move that we close SD-1911-1200 Airport Drive Hotel. It's been moved in second. It closes application. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. More to see in the building. Next item on the agenda. Because we know how he's voting. Time? Sure. That sounds fine. OK, we're going to consider two applications at the same time. There will be continued final application SD-19-1200 of SBRC properties, LLC, to subdivide a 27.8 acre parcel into two lots of 6.2 acres and 21.2 acres at 284 Meadowland Drive. And item number 10, continued site plan application SP-19-07 of SBRC properties to construct a 25,560 square foot, 31 foot high warehouse building, paved parking area, and associated site improvements. I propose 6.2 lot at 284 Meadowland Drive, who is here for the action. Thank you for your time. Very welcome. Good evening. I'm Dave Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates. David Chang. David Chang, the contractor for the project. Raise your right hand. You promised all the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on the penalty of perjury. I do. I do. Tim McKenzie and Adam Buska, the applicant I think are running late. OK, time flex of interest. OK. Please discover the project. And of course, you've seen the staff comments as well. We have. Thank you. We appear back before you. This application is located at the Meadowland Business Park. And it's on what we call lot one. What's depicted on the screen represents a large portion of lot one, a lot of open space undeveloped at this point in time. And to bring everybody up to speed and don't know if anybody at home can see this. But this is all of lot one. And the proposed project is located right here in what we call lot one G. And in this particular case, orientation north is up on this particular plan. This is Heinsberg Road running in the north-south direction. Meadowland Drive comes off the intersection of Heinsberg Road and runs south-easterly and then easterly. And in this particular case, this happens to the O'Brien commercial condominium. And we have logic supply right here, the Rock Church. This is Black Rock Construction, Keller Williams. That's Civil Engineering Associates Office right there. As well as we have Super Temp, Wire and Cable. That's appeared before you in the past. Nagli and Chase's contractor warehousing. And this is an office building from CBA. We have Keller Williams building is also office building. And so that's the least orientation as far as where you are in South Burlington. And this particular application, this is the subdivision component of the application where we're seeking to- We're considering both at the same time, but go ahead with subdivision. Fair enough. And we'll do both at the same time. That's very efficient. And the first component as far as staff report, perhaps we'll go through that, is to again create a six plus acre subdivision off of the existing 27 acre parcel. And that being the introduction, we can go right into staff comments if you like. I'm getting there, so I'll be sure. So item one on page three talks about access issues. So when we first started the project, there was the concept of providing lot to lot interconnectivity through some sort of access easement. And subsequent to that, there were a number of changes in order to provide sidewalks into the project site. And ultimately it called, we proposed a relocation of the driveway that would service this particular lot 1G area and have proposed that to be a shared drive, shared curb cut coming off the metal end drive that will also serve this portion of lot one. So originally the concept had been back in this particular location with regard to some sort of interconnectivity between the lots, between again, what we call a lot 1G and lot one, based on the land, we find that these work out very well in the retail areas portions of the city where again you can basically work behind the scenes to get from one place to the other. We don't think we're gonna see a lot of that interdependence between these particular commercial lots, again just because of their character. So as such we were proposing that this be basically a shared drive that would provide a curb access into lot one for its future development. So in essence we're reducing curb cuts in lieu of the back of the lot type of connectivity. So that was our thought. Currently the access easement is shown on the plan in support of that and we've done our, tried to get rid of the old idea as far as this particular concept and this was done prior to us placing the driveway within actually on lot one as part of this combined access into the site. So that's the latest idea that the application currently has and we're open to discussion on that item. So my understanding of staff comment is that plans that looks like plans are inconsistent. Is that correct? Right, so staff didn't have any issue with the shared access drive as it's proposed at the front of the site at the north end of the site but on some of the plans the connection at the rear of the site is still shown and the question really is if you intend to have it have both connections, the front and the rear then there should be an easement on both connections but if, so the question for you is do you intend to have both or just the one in the front? We do not plan on having both. The most recent set of plans have eliminated all of that with a reference to the old inter back lot connectivity and to Marla's point there may be a road plan out there still. So we're happy with the condition that indicates that that needs to get all removed in favor of the front access. So I guess then my follow up question to the board would be is the board okay with the shared access being exclusively at the front? Staff thought that was fine. Yeah. Okay, go ahead. Yes, Mark. Mark, does that make sense? Yeah. Yep. I mean it is on a curve but it's on the outside of the curve and I think it works fine. Next staff comment, are you ready? Moving on to the site plan component of the application before the board. We have more comments than on the subdivision application and we'll work our way right through those. Item one on page two talks about the fact that the plans make reference to future building additions, future parking lots, future edges of pavement. Those should be removed to avoid any confusion with regard to what the board, what we're hoping the board will provide as far as an approval for the project. So we acknowledge that and are happy with the condition to have that removed from the plans, the cleaned up plans that go back to staff. And here we are. Item two is an item that we had a lot of discussion with at the sketch plan. And it specifically talks about the land use and what's allowed in the industrial open space district. In this particular case, what had been a concern in the past is any type of freight loading facility where you have materials coming in one side and exiting out the other. And in this particular case, that's farthest from what this particular application is about. What this basically does is takes material in from individuals, companies and the like, processes them inside, basically puts them in appropriate storage containers, builds those containers on site and then stores them for a lot longer than I ever realized as far as the moving company is concerned. And then ultimately moves those stored components out to the final destination. So unlike, there was a graphic that we had provided last time that basically showed this particular loading, unloading, freight terminal where you had loading docks on one side of the building, loading docks on the opposite side and materials literally removed from one truck to another. That's not what this particular application is. We have two loading docks for this particular processing. And as such, felt that it was, we were very comfortable with the fact that we were not considered to be a freight processing facility. And as such, felt that we were eligible for this particular use in the industrial open. I recall that and I agree entirely. Anybody else comments? I agree as well. Okay. Okay. Moving on to page five, item three. This discusses, in fact, there are gonna be a number of staff comments here that talk about aesthetics of the building. So things that we wanna talk a little bit about is again, what's in the land development regulations as far as expectations and then talk a little bit about the Meadowland business park itself and what we have out there as far as existing conditions and compatibility. What I'm gonna do is just take up 25 seconds a year time and read the purpose of the industrial space open district. It's in the staff report, but it's important to go over that again. It basically indicates that to provide suitable locations for high quality, large lot office, light industrial and research uses in the city with access to major arterial routes and the Burlington International Airport. The IO district regulations and standards are intended to allow high quality planned developments that preserve the general open character of the district, minimize impacts on the natural resources and water quality and enhance the visual quality of the approaches to the city. Now, going back to the big picture of the Meadowland business park, this is one that was permitted under those exact auspices, those particular requirements. At this point in time, the preservation of the natural resources, the wetland areas, the views or basically what people experience coming from along Hinesburg Road, those are already embedded in this particular subdivision approval. So now what we're looking to do is developing a portion of an approved lot. That's what lot one G being split off from lot one. So I'll continue on as far as the remaining portion of the statement and while providing suitable locations for employment and business growth, the location and architectural design of buildings in a manner that preserves these qualities is strongly encouraged. So strongly encouraged is at least a good thing, but it's not a mandatory thing. So the question is for the board, whether you wanna talk about the building and what it looks like. And then if we do, then we'll introduce some photos that were taken this afternoon of the industrial park as far as what the character of the existing buildings are. So we're here to follow the lead of the chair and the board as far as how you'd like to handle this particular item. Well, I mean, we have to see the building though. So the building that they have proposed is shown on the screen. I'm sorry? That's the elevation that they've proposed. But what is the- Does the rest of the park look like that? Some of the buildings do. Yes. They're light industrial use. They're metal buildings and designed to basically facilitate work inside, but minimalist on the outside. Minimalist is a kind term. I congratulate you on coming up with it. So yeah, this is a big deal. So yeah, let's look at photos of the other buildings. Fair enough. For the board, Marla, these photos were emailed to you after the meeting started, so. Just so the record can be complete staff. It's in their email. Thank you. So what David has right there on the top one is a view in the easterly direction. It's very beautiful with the mountains in the background. But nonetheless, the tallest building on the middle left, that's a super tent wiring cable. This is one of the few applications that the board did review with regard to aesthetics because there was a 20-foot height variance request, not variance waiver request, excuse me. And so out of all that, the request was to put in some windows on that upper level. And that was the extent of what I remember. It's perhaps selective memory, but nonetheless that was our memory because it was very important for this particular industrial use to have that particular component. But at the same time, it did trigger the only opportunity for the board or in our opinion, as far as the ability to review aesthetics. So that was what the board approved. And moving to the right in the foreground is one Mark Bear is familiar with. Mark, I don't know if you can see that, but that's Mark designed that particular building. Currently, Homeland Security is occupying that structure. To the far left. There's a reason why they never discussed the aesthetics on it because it was personal. I might well take it. So on the far left is the Rock Church. That's basically a metal building with a peaked roof. Moving to the right of the Homeland Security building in the tan is the back portion of Naglian Chase's contractor warehouse or contractor's yard, I'm sorry, that's the proper term. And then in the front of that, and the far right is the CBA building. And then below the CBA building is the first phase of the logic supply, which was a very minimalist metal building. Very cool. Quality. Very cool. Cool? Oh yeah. It's a very cool building. I'm wondering if, I'm sorry, it's just so hard to see. I'm wondering if you could maybe come over here and give me a close-up. I think that's fair. I'm also putting it on the Google Street views. Oh, excellent. Oh, you have it. That's logic supply. Can we get that panoramic view? Can we match the views? That's also logic supply phase one. Yes, that's correct. So if Dave sent me this by email, oh, here's an email. Maybe I can put it in the folder for you Delilah. Okay. I'm just gonna plop these. Dave, can you, in the meantime, just bring that over to prank that image? Is this the whole park? That is part of the park. On the backside is the O'Brien condominium, commercial condominium that we mentioned. And... When you say the back, you mean the backside of this floor? It's over, you'll see. Yeah, that's all right. So that's the neighbor. That's, this would be take, this photo is taken from the compose. That's the building directly next to this space, right? This is a metal wrinkle. You think that's cool? Do I think that's cool? No, that's what exists. That's what exists. This is O'Brien's condo project. Oh, geez. But at least it's got something. Not much. What? It's got... Would you flip it around again? Is there some way you can indicate where your building fits in? On the, is there some place you can... It would not be in this picture. This is just for reference of the building. It would be over here. Because the road's swinging around. This is the road here. We're on lock one. So it's right on the road and plainly visible. Is that right? Well, just to answer that question, the built proposed building is 1500 feet from Hinesburg Road and 250 feet from Metal Land Drive. So there is separation distances. It's not right on the road. Here's the road. There's two retaining ponds and potential ponds in the front that sits back a little bit. Yeah, and this is it. What are you going to have around? Do we have some kind of landscaping plan? Or is it... No, that swings. That's lighting. I'll show some of the landscaping. The front gets taken up by these retention ponds. Let me ask a slightly off-the-wall question. Marla, do all the other owners of these buildings in this park get notice of this hearing? Do they know about this plan? Only they're direct of butters. Page nine. So the butters across the street and the butters next to them and then the butters, the residential butters to the south. This is the landscaping plan page. No, it's a site utility plan. It's showing the planting plan. Marla, are the elevations in the packet anywhere? It's in the first packet. Yeah, the elevations are in the packet. The subdivision packet. That's right. The last page of plans before you get into the text stuff in the packet. Frank's question about neighbors. Marla is correct. Only a butters get notified. We did, however, reach out to a Brian and Tim McKenzie. We did talk to logic supply during the design phase of this project. And those are butters? Those are butters, but they were the immediate ones. But I just want you to know that we did reach out to them. And did they see the plans? Did they see the elevation that we just saw? I don't know specifically, but we definitely shared the project with them. I don't know if the elevations were shared, but we definitely shared sheets that you see right there. Well, I see Tim right behind. The logic supply had no issues with the project. So as you go down that path. Go. As you go down that path, I just want to remind the board that the aesthetic quality of the National Open Space District is not the decision of the residents. It is subjective seeing that it's not defined anywhere in the land development regulations. And as such it's an open can of worms as far as that's concerned. So that's our concern as far as just the applicant. You know, when they come to the city and they are presented with the land development regulations and there's no guidance other than a word that can be interpreted. So I think the elevation is shocking because it's black and white. It's obviously not going to be a white building with, it's not going to look like a jail. It's going to be tan or green or something, right? Is it in their own color? Yeah. And you hit it on the, it might not be as nice of a mark drawing, but it's a very, it's a construction drawing of how to build a building. It's a black and white. So it's, I mean, if you look at the buildings on your, you know, neighboring buildings. And Marla was able to download those and put those up on screen so that we can zoom in on that to make it easier for everybody to see. It's going to look like those buildings. It's not going to, it's not going to be this horrible. Well, now with the exception that all of the buildings in this view have some features to them. There's windows. Well, there's windows on this. There's brick. There's windows. There's a peeked roof. Except the one in the back. Except the one in the far back. Nope. Yeah. Nagely and Chase is building. You're right. Or Super 10. The front of the adjoining building, I thought was a really interesting counter example to this. It's the same. I don't know if you can go to the street view. It's interestingly, it's the same construction as far as I know. I'm not a contractor. It is. So pretty much all these buildings are either pre-engineered or structured steel with insulation panels. Yeah. So if you get to the front of that one, I thought, you know, I'm not saying this is what needs to be done. I'm just pointing this out as it's the same construction and they use two colors. And isn't that, is that or is that not? Is that the secure shreds? Yeah. More interesting. Yeah. Secure shreds in there and. Gregory cremation services. Yeah. It's not too dissimilar in shape as our proposed building. Right. And it's also a lot closer to the street. Has a few more trees. It has two colors. I mean, I'm not, I don't think staff is implying that we're looking for a brick building that looks like it belongs on UVM's campus. Right. But, you know, I think that there are things that can be done without breaking the character that enhance the aesthetic quality. But if I understand correctly and Mark, I think, I think I'm asking you, these are matters of negotiation rather than compulsion. Is that right to put it bluntly? So I think that's what the Apple can say because they're reading from the purpose of the industrial open space district. Oh, that there are several as Dave Marshall correctly pointed out. There are a few. There are a few criterion that. Relate to a set of quality. Others are worded more strongly. What, what are you looking at? So on the next page, staff comment. Number. Six is about the criteria that says proposed structure shall be related mostly to themselves, the terrain into existing buildings and roads in the city have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. So that's kind of a subjective call whether they're harmonious with the other buildings. Are you guys willing to, without having any specific suggestion for you, which I leave to design people, are you guys willing to spruce it up a little bit? Or do you want to just do your metal building? And that's it. Oh, what this means? Well, it means no, we're not willing to spruce it up a little bit. I'm going to just jump in. So what Marla has presented here is the fact that the mass has been broken up. You know, simply just by color. That's an idea. I'm not sure if that's because Adam's here and the builders here, they're better suited to answer that question than I am. But just to point out what I'm seeing in regards to ideas on how to basically achieve a goal. Look, there are two questions. One is for designers and builders and the other is for the owner. One is what can be done. And the other is, you know, is the owner willing to open his wallet for any degree of improvement and to what extent? You know, just for the sake of aesthetics, as opposed to what it's mostly there for, which is an economic thing. So this, I have spent, I spent eight years working right next to where you are down on Clinton Avenue in 92 to 2000. And the building we were in was an old stable from 1910. And the building that you guys were in was, you know, appropriately right next to the railroad tracks, right? You know, squirrel jumps into the transformer and, you know, we ain't got electricity for a while, you know? So... I've been in that building. I just wasn't building now. Yeah. So I think that building was appropriately appropriate for that space, you know? The uses that are there now, you know, Mackenzie was there for a long time and we bought our refrigerator and stove right there, you know? So I think that the kind of buildings that are there are appropriate for that space, you know? So here we are in slightly fancier South Berlin. And so I think that what you're hearing is that we're going to want, you know, I think the board's going to want. And it's a negotiation. There's no question. If you pushed us on this, we'd have to say, you know, gray rusting metal, you know, it's going to be fine, you know? Because... Maybe. Well, I don't know that that's consistent with the standards. So I disagree on that. I disagree with the bill, but anyway, go ahead. Well, so what I'm saying is that it's really an individual aesthetic. I mean, we may all agree on the aesthetics that we want, but pushed up against a wall in our courtroom, you know? I mean, if these guys wanted to take it that far, you know, I don't think we'd have that, you know, it's strongly encouraged. You know, I don't have to do it. So I think what you're hearing is that we would like to get some kind of aesthetic improvement, you know? Some more plantings, some visual breakups of stuff. If you can do it cost-effectively, you know, this is a different environment than Flint Avenue. So I think that's all we're saying is that we'd like to see some improvements. I mean, and even if it's also some improvements, you know, just on the front of the building, you know, just... I mean, yes, you look at the West elevation, you know, you've got the corner entrance into the office space and the one, you know, man door, and then it's just, you know, a solid wall. You know, I think that, you know, if we were to look at making it at least two-tone, you would break up the scale of that elevation. But because that's the elevation that the parking is on. So you're parking right up against the side of the building. You know, and I think the other side elevation, east elevation, at least looks like it has a canopy cover. You know, at least has something that breaks it up. The front, it would be nice. And again, I know we can't dictate and we recognize the location it's in. But we're trying to be kind of harmonious with the other buildings in the park. You know, if possible to get the windows into the mezzanine space on the second floor, just to break up that front elevation and possibly go to two-tone. And if possible, get it like a little canopy cover over the front entrance just to delineate it a little better. You're not talking about a huge amount of money and I think it would greatly improve the set of building. It's kind of a stretch in the point. But I think it would bring a little scale to it. The vestibule is actually recessed into the building. So the red, the only color in that building is red that you see. That's that shaded red. That actually represents a masonry or brick material. And the main door, call it, actually, if you look at the floor pan, it actually goes in. So there's no need. We did that way. So there's no overhang needed. You are in a, the mezzanine is kind of over your head if you can visualize that. Is there any practical use? I mean, look, there's an argument. I suppose there's a theoretical argument that form follows function as it were. I believe I've heard before and therefore it's beautiful because it does everything it's supposed to do. That's what an engineer says. That's your position, I believe. Mine, yes. So let me turn it around the other way. Is there any imaginative way that breaking it up a little bit, putting in another entrance or some windows or some panels actually has some utility? Is there some way to come up with something useful that has the modulating effect that we are groping for? Approach it from that direction. What would you like to have this building do that maybe it doesn't do? Start from there. Like getting natural light by windows in the upper half of that would give you some natural light. One of the things that Adam and I are kind of talking to each other right now about, to Frank's point, this layout is based on function of what's going on inside. So this is a processing storage facility. A big part of it is storage. So low those big blank walls are storage boxes behind it. So it probably would not make sense for us to add some windows there. We do have, if you look at the top, the south elevation, that's actually the back of the property. We have some windows there. Perhaps we think about, from just a budgetary concern, maybe just shifting those to the front of the building, maybe add a couple more windows on the mezzanine space, as Mark kind of mentioned. We'd have to give that a little thought to make sure it doesn't look forced. We'd want to stack the windows, but back to the function component that Adam doesn't have any people up there at storage. You know, I just had an idea. It won't take more than 15 seconds if people can laugh and put it away. I'm from Philadelphia, and I go back for an Eagles game. You go drive through South Philadelphia, and you have these very old buildings, and they have blank walls. It's very common to have just a cement three-story, 70-foot long wall next to a lot. And throughout South Philly, it's fantastic. They're covered with murals. And the irony is, on the one hand, on one wall is Frank Rizzo, the greatest racist cop there ever was, and you go a block later in his chubby checker. I mean, it's fantastic. But the point is that, is anybody interested in something like that? Or if you drive to the Cape. If you drive to the Cape, there's a couple of gas. If you go out of Boston, I forget what the road is, and you go on a Cape Cod. On one side of the road, there are a couple of big... The old Boston gas. You know what I'm talking about? The Boston gas thing. You know, someone did a very imaginative, splashy color over those things. Maybe, I don't know, would you entertain something like that? You look less thrilled, Mr. Bruce. I'm appealing to your artistic sense. I think Dave and I were just chatting briefly. We have the two windows in the back of the building to allow in some natural light. Those could be moved to the front of the building. And I've forgotten what the landscape plan was, and I don't know if we have some green area in front of the building that we could maybe put some trees between. It looks like there were some trees there. I can go back to that. Unfortunately, you know, we're looking at a black and white rendering, and the rendering shows these red panels, which is not really the material that we're using either. They're going to be more of a flat surface. You've already been sworn in, right? No, he's only been here for sketch. Oh, okay. You do it, Tim. I do. What do you do? Okay, thank you very much. Do you retroactively square the things you just said? This is the front, which looks like it has four crab apples. Crab apples and some little spirea bushes. And then a couple of trees over here. Some back here. Some along here. And I assume in the wetland area, they're going to be like, they'll just be grasses. And a few little boards. We did, for the benefit of the neighbors in the back, concentrate a lot of plantings on the berm. Now, just for the boards to remind the board, you know, the applicant is meeting their landscape minimums, landscape minimums. There's nothing to stop them from, you know, adding a few more larger scale trees. We do need to keep in mind this is in the View Protection Overlay District. I believe at the near, at the lowest corner of the building, Dave Marshall had calculated that the maximum elbow height would be 55 feet. So any sort of trees that they would propose would have to have a peak, a maximum mature height of 55 feet. So we did revise the landscaping plan to pick species that did not create that particular encumbrance on the View Protection Zone. I just bring that up as we're talking about additional trees. Yeah. That's something for the board. They can't say, put in some oaks. Yes. We deleted them all. One of the building, but I would encourage at least a law to come of creativity with possibly two tone or something. We approved, we approved a building about two years ago that we required a strike on. And I am embarrassed every time I go by it because it's so awful. Well, that's the execution. The idea was brilliant. No, it was a very bland industrial building. It's closer to a major road than you'll be, but it was awful. And I have a very hard time approving this based on the elevation I see. I'm not saying that, I mean, I'm sure you'll come back with something that's going to be clearer and more attractive, because this is not great. And you'll find some new utility. Think about utility. Yeah, you know, Frank, if you look at their layout, the point of this thing is to store boxes. Yes. So there's not, you know, I mean, the only thing windows are going to do is let the folks that are pulling the boxes get a little, know whether it's snowing outside, which is good. But you could accomplish that with skylights as well. And that wouldn't help us a bit. Would the board feel if we were to come back with inducing two tones similar to what we'll call the O'Brien building? I mean, there's only, like, function is a big part of this, of Adam's program. Like, we're not going to be adding wings and angles and all that kind of stuff. Why would you? I just think that, I mean, just spicing it up just a little bit would go a long way. And I'm not an architect, but like, I'm just thinking, like, you know, if we could find the office area separate from the warehouse space on the outside, you know, creating a band across the front, maybe it wraps around 20 feet, you know. I mean, honestly, Harbor Freight did a little something to create something like that. And it was, you know, it's a very plain building. But it has a little touch of something to make it clear where the entrance is, make it clear what its purpose is. You know, I don't think it has to cost you. I mean, that's not fair. I'm sure it costs you a nickel to change colors. But you can even do, like, well, my big joke is I don't do colors as an architect, so. But you could, like, the two-tone could be like the boot cup blue, you know, to delineate where the office space is. And it would break, at least break up the front elevation a little bit. Think logo. Think Tupac. So I think we can respond to the board that we are open to inducing two-tones probably along the lines of delineating the office from the warehouse and just working with that concept. That's great. Maybe at the entrance where you have a reset, if the two-tone goes full height, just to give it that little bit of hunch to indicate where the entrance is. Yes, no, all. I heard this guy. But the function of the building would remain the same. Perfect. So I think we've discussed that enough. Do you need to continue today? Well, so we've got, like, 14 staff comments. So we've got to rip through a bunch of staff comments. So, number four. I will presume that number four is similar to the discussion we had on number three. Great. As far as aesthetics and move on to number five. In this particular case, staff mentions that the proposed retaining wall appears to be five feet from the property line that is exactly what it's intended to be because those are what the rules are. We're quite comfortable with the plan as it is, and you are proving it that way. We can't build it close in five feet without a violation. So we acknowledge that, and it wasn't a mistake. Moving on to number six. Building scale and height meets the criterion. Visual quality is discussed above under site plan review criteria standard A. So, similar to the discussion points on three to four, we'll put six in there also. Item number seven. Staff recommends that the board require the applicant to update their schedule of landscaping values prior to closing the hearing. We have submitted updated ones recently to Marla, and those will be available for the board to review the next time we come back. Item eight, staff recommends the board require the applicant to demonstrate whether the 10% interior landscaping requirement is met. Similarly, we'd had these done a long time ago, but just didn't get them to Marla, so that's our fault. But they are in her hands now, and we will talk about that more next time. Item eight, excuse me, nine. The applicant has verbally represented the interior planting areas are protected by curbing. Actually, the plans go further than that. They actually have a call out. Can you point me to that? Because I saw your message, and I didn't... It's on the site plan. Oh, yeah? There's a lot of information on there. It's on there. The site plan, there wasn't a different line type or anything. No, they're not. So basically the intent when we look at the site plan is that all of the islands that surround the building, including the large green space on the north side of the building, that's on the upper side, are all curbed. And what we're trying to do on the outer perimeter is basically have sheet flow into grassline swales as part of the stormwater management of the facility. So that's where curbing is not proposed. And everything right around the building, including those green spaces that are identified, are all curbed components of the site. So I don't have any objection to what you're saying. It's just that I couldn't find it on the plan. Okay. I saw it earlier, so it's... Well, why don't you show it to her offline? Anyways, what we will do to make it easier for staff and any other third party in the future to delineate those curbs separately of any other edge of pavement item. So we'll run with that. Item 10, the applicant is proposing to screen a large utility cabinet to the front of the site with four are provided. Staff considered as a proposed tree locations will not provide screening from the street and recommends that the board require the applicant to fully screen the cabinet from the street. Actually, Delilah, if you can go to sheet 2.1, that does show that we did modify that particular area. So I will put a red dot on that area of interest. That's where the proposed transformer is. And before it was just on two sides and we basically have wrapped that all the way around and now we have seven Arborvites around that building with the Green Mountain Power Access on that east side. So we think we're getting closer on that one. How big are they to start? Don't know. Have you scrolled to the legend? I mean, Arborvita grow. Even if they're three feet, they'll be five feet next year. Right. Never mind. Don't waste time on that. I mean, looking at this, to the tree, I mean, the screening is supposed to be from the street. Should those trees be rejiggered so that maybe there aren't two facing the south and there are two that face the east side? I feel like I'm taking Bill's point of, as you're driving into the site, what are you seeing? Well, the other interesting thing is that they're at the bottom of a little hillside, right? And so you're not going to see much anyway. Well, from the other side. But this is the walking path. Right. So you're seeing it from the walking path. And the driving path. Let's talk about who we're trying to protect as far as view sheds. Right now, as you head out in the northeast lead direction, there's new plantings along Meadowland Drive that, again, are intended to provide initial buffering screening as far as anybody coming around the corner. In this particular case, it's very common to basically have one particular side available to Greenmont Power. They want access to the side where there's stable surface. So that's very common entity in regards to this particular layout and what is being done on the remaining sides. What we don't have as far as any control on what this particular view shed is coming back in this particular direction, and that's why we've tried to basically screen those, you know, these two sides as far as any views coming down Meadowland Drive, looking down the hill, and this is going to be slightly uphill of it, to basically provide that particular level of screening. It's also 200 feet away from the road. So, I mean, I'm just... I'll leave it at that. Yeah, I see that a lot. You know, even going down in my neighborhood, you know, the big transformer boxes are open to the street, you know, and there's screening behind them. I walked by them, and there's, you know, kids that have played on them and shouldn't be playing on them, but... And riding on them. And riding on them. Exactly. That's Katie Barrett's thing. You can call Katie Barrett, and she'll paint it for you. Exactly. Katie Barrett will do it. So, I think, in my limited sense, I think that the screening they provided is okay. I think it's ample. Frank? It's okay. Item 11 talks about an erosion control plan, and a silt fence depicted. We'll work with staff on making sure that that is cleaned up. Item 12. This is the item with regard to the final review from Dave Wheeler, with regard to stormwater compliance in the rules. And the big picture is that the new rival wetland has been designed to meet all of the state rules, including a 100-year design storm event with regard to post-development peak flow management. What we also have here is a particular standard that the city says, irregardless of Dave Marshall what you're doing for Law 1G, anything else that you touch needs to be compliant with our rules. So, right now, the original Metal M business park was not designed for the 25-year design storm. And Dave has made it quite clear. He says, we're not expecting you to go and rip up the entire street and replace that infrastructure. However, anything that is touching this project that you are installing should be compliant with the 25-year design standard. So, what we did is, late last week, is we tweaked all of the modeling to basically see what was necessary to meet that. We shared that with Dave and Demarla. The plans have been submitted, but not in a timely way. So, anyways, long story short, as we think we've got this one nailed, but you will see that in your packet next time. Would you help me understand? Go back to the 25-year what? Is that... 25-year design storm. Yes. Yeah. I just need to be educated a little bit. The last one of these, the last project I did that involved having to comply with stormwater standards was a 100-year standard in renews. I mean, is there some industry standards am I talking about two different things? Help me understand what happened here. So, the 100-year storm or what the federal regulators now like to call the 1% chance storm. Which happens three times every 10 years. Depending on where you are. Statistically, it can happen. But, putting that aside, we have flood limits, floodways, and 100-year storm events that we need to make sure that all of our facilities are located outside of us. That's not what's happening here. The state of Vermont, when you have more than 10 acres associated with the common plan of development, the Meadowland Business Park, you're required to make all of your infrastructure meet the 100-year storm event. They feel that when you create 10 acres of impervious area that you need to basically go to the next level up and protect all of your downstream of butters. And that's what the infrastructure for Lot 1G does. It basically meets that particular standard. However, for the remaining portions of Lot 1 that drain into the original, what we call the dry stormwater pond, is in order to get it underneath the driveway, we originally had shown a 24-inch diameter culvert because ultimately that's what size the culvert is out on Meadowland Drive. Dave asked us to say, time out, we understand where you're coming from, but you've got to meet the rules. The conveyance underneath the driveway, the proposed driveway, has to have more capacity. So we've shown more capacity on the updated site plan and we'll look for Dave to basically sign off on the calculations that support that. But where does a 25-year come from? That's the plan. Your regulations. The land development regulations say, regardless of any state regulations, we expect you to create infrastructure that can support the 25-year design storm. The 4% return event. The point is, they're going to have this much water going through this big a thing, no matter what. Well, the developer would always say that. Because, well, no, and then it goes down to a smaller size. Yes. From this practicality standpoint, we started in one direction, so we understand what the rules are. Thank you. So that was item 12, item 13. The last one, not the last one. The item 13 talks about traffic and the different ways of computing what an appropriate vehicle trip end assigned value is for this particular property. So there's a couple of different land uses that the traffic consultant has proposed or subsequently proposed after its traffic study. The traffic study starts with the original, the current operations at Busco Movers. And based on those particular what it's doing today, it's 15 vehicle trip ends during the peak hour period. And we all know that land uses or particular businesses have their own characteristics. So as much as we like to use that as a measuring device, we know that the board, the city has always used the ITE manual as being the Bible, lived by the Bible, the died by the Bible was John Dinklage used to say. So in this particular case, the consultant took a land use that was, oh, bear with me while I bring out, get the exact words. So the... Marla's going to fill in the blanks for me. Yeah, it's in the staff notes if you scroll up, just a tiny bit. The definition of the warehouse and land use category is, nope, you've scrolled too far, a warehouse is primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but it may also include office and maintenance areas. So the staff comment here, Dave, just to redirect you a little bit, is not about the land use category. It's about the fact that it didn't use the fitted curve generation. While the methodology may or may not be appropriate that was used, it's not a approved ITE methodology as far as I'm aware to just use some of the input data. So the staff's recommendation is either use the fitted curve or have the board send it to someone who knows more what they're talking about to tell me that it's okay. So to explain the situation, the data set that was used for the initial analysis ranged from... they had a certain number of points below 30,000 and they had a bunch of points from much larger. And the consultant basically took the specific points for projects less than 30,000 square feet to represent what this particular project would be and basically created a curve based on that limited data set. So it's not skewed by huge projects with 150,000 square feet. It basically was focused on the points that basically were closest to the proposed project. And that's how he came up with 18 vehicle trepens. Subsequently in further communications with Marla, he offered yet another land use that depending on which curve you might use comes up with either 14 or 60 trepens. So what we're kind of saying is we're all in the right neighborhood and the number that we propose is actually the highest of either the actual use or the most recent land use ITE code that perhaps from a description fits this particular land use even better. What do you mean? I mean it doesn't get a little gray about what actual use here is. You're already on the edge for actual use between a truck terminal and a warehouse. And truck terminals have a lot of trepens. In the morning and in the evening when they leave and come back and the other side of the coin is... You're right, Frank. So are we playing around with something that's mythical or are we doing something that addresses what this actually is? The board could claim that it's mythical because we used Buska Movers actual turning movements. They're accounts of what comes in and what leaves the property. However if somebody else comes in to this particular property not Buska Movers, it's important that there is a land use that's been utilized for the traffic study that is representative of something that is not only inclusive of their use but other uses also. So that's where the traffic consultant started down the road, no pun intended, with different types of ITE land uses to try to fit a ITE described land use to this particular business. And that's where they started with a general light industrial number. That's where we came up with 18, excuse me, sorry, strike that thought. The latest idea was the general light industrial and that's where they came up with the numbers somewhere between 14 and 16. So to Marla's point, the question is, do you want to have somebody else look at this? Do we want to provide additional narrative for the board to absorb this? We did provide some of that narrative to SAF and was hoping that some of that could be shared with you. Let me ask a question of both staff and you. Who conceptually, who was affected in a place like this by vehicle trip ins? The other users of the park, right? Yeah, and so the staff comments do say that staff does not anticipate any of the numbers that may be the right number will have a significant impact on the conclusions of the intersection capacity analysis, but they consider that the traffic impact fees taken by the project should reflect the actual number of trips supposed to be generated. And for all applicants across administrative or DRB, they use the fitted up curve. So what we're really talking about, from staff perspective, is traffic impact. Is this a significant number, whether it's 18 or 31 BTEs? I mean, we talk about a big number here? Yeah, that's a significant number. That's a big number? Yeah. It's $1,000 per trip. Pardon? It's $1,000 per trip. So 18 versus 31 is $13,000. And what's the cost to get a consultant there to do it? $800? Bingo. Consultant. Well, you've had a consultant. We had. We hired Roger Dickinson. Right. So the question is whether to have a third party technical review, because as a civil engineer, not a traffic engineer, I look at the, which was included in the packet, I look at traffic impact assessment, which was included in the packet for the board. And I say, I don't know if this is right. No, I got you. And I'm saying technical review. I'm not. I'm saying it's insignificant. And Roger Dickinson is the guy. So I would go with Roger. All right. That's who I'd hire anyway. Well, you can't because he's conflicted out, but that's the guy. So Frank, if I may, just one last item on this before you make a decision is that the IT ECO 030 intermodal truck terminal. That's the one that generates 31 trips. This is not an intermodal intermodal truck terminal. You know, the points that were taken were for large facilities. From the warehouse for the fitted curve. I'm sorry. The 31 was using the fitted curve for a warehouse at the proposed size. 25, 560. You and I talked about intermodal truck terminal, but I scrapped that after our discussion. Mr. Bruska, how many trucks do you have? 18. And how big is your current facility? 16,000. Okay. Are you expecting to buy a bunch more trucks to get into the 25? So 18. And the question is how many per hour? Right. He'd have to have almost his entire fleet coming and going. Or his entire fleet coming and all the employees getting in their cars and driving themselves home. Right. Okay. But in an hour. During peak. It has to be in the peak two hours. I mean, it's not 31. He's got eight. I guess it could be. You'd have to get every employee to come and go in the same period of time. Same two hour period. One hour period. Four to six p.m. Is it the peak hour within the two hour period? This is why I don't know and I can't make these recommendations because I'm not super good at traffic study stuff. Are you giving up on Avenue U moving or adding? So all your trucks are going to be there. I vote to move on. My only comment would be that out of those 18 trucks, eight of them are designated to long distance moving. So they go for three weeks at a time. The 18 wheelers and then they come back. Do you have a bunch of office employees or non driver employees as well? Six people working in the building. Half the employees ride the bus. I have two. All right. We're talking $10,000. I don't really care that much. Can we agree on a number though? Well, it's arbitrary, right? I mean, So the traffic impact assessment, I apologize it didn't make it into the staff comments on the traffic impact assessment included. Which just came from Roger Dickinson. Am I correct in saying that? And you would accept 18 trips. That's what we gave you. Can we accept 18 trips? Yeah. Thank you. Mark, you okay with that? Yeah. Great. Staff comment 14. Hours of light operation. So we think there's room for this. When you look at the notes on the lighting plan, it talks about the fact that there will be on a controller that allows them to be dimmed at a certain time of the night. The plans currently say midnight. And we're willing to basically roll that back to an earlier period. So that if there's any issues with the proximity of the proposed project to the residential neighborhood, that we can basically bring that into a more controllable timeframe, perhaps nine o'clock or eight o'clock. Again, we're looking to basically try to basically make sure that from a security standpoint that it's a recognized location, but at the same time be cognizant of the location. So when you say it dims, I assume you'll have like a motion sensor or something that will bring the illumination back up. Lighting control panel. And which is tied to which has an astronomical clock. So it actually knows when dawn and dusk is throughout the year. So you just pro you can program and say, okay, come on half hour after I'm talking about motion. If you want illumination to go up, do not believe if since we have this lighting control panel and the wording is such here, I'm speaking without knowing inherently the lighting plan. But what I'm reading here would tell me that, that it's forced to be on till midnight, 100% and then dims down to 50% for security reasons. So motion. 50% is still adequate. So if you've got a camera and you've got this grainy, you know, picture of a couple of people going in is 50% still okay to identify. It's also it's more than just seeing something on camera. It's also like somebody needs to go out and do something for safety purposes. So the door lights are proposed to be on 100% dust till dawn. All other lighting is 100% from dusk until midnight and then reduces to 50% from midnight until dawn. Staff's question was, is midnight the right number? And we're willing to back that up. Yeah, we'll come back with a redevised time. Unless there's any specific. Until the neighbors. We're not going to know until the neighbors start complaining. Well, I mean, midnight's pretty, pretty late. Yeah, I mean, I know you got trucks coming in from long distances and they, but they can come in at three o'clock in the morning. Right. Just for fun. I'm going to look at the noise ordinance. And the noise ordinance is 9pm to 7am. Okay. I was wondering if maybe that's a good starting point. Yeah, I was thinking 9 or 10. 9 or 10pm. So we'll change the lighting control to be 9pm. Good. That makes great sense. Where's the closest residential? Just up the hill. Can you bring that overall site plan up on the street? That's interesting. Wow. Way far. We're on the globe now. Sorry. So at 3am track, the trailer coming in is audible. Audible, yeah, but you're down in the gully. And the lights won't go up. And we actually deleted the pole lights on that side of the property. Yeah, go back. That's one more sheet, if you may. Oops. Looking for 2.0. So I was going to have to back up when they come in. So the noise is the next comment. Yeah, we're getting there. You're almost there. Here's the site. The neighborhood's over here. If you can see the site, these are the residences. It is over 300 feet away. And one of the graphic images that we wanted to do at least. Is it this one? This one. So anyways, you know, the other side. Is it that one? No, the other side. Thank you. You had it right. One photograph. There you go. Thank you. So this is a view to the south. And this is the tree line that has blossomed over time. I remember when we did the landscaping back in 04, as far as the berm. And what has happened over time is that it's really become a very nice screen from the industrial park to that particular residential area. So beyond those trees, beyond the field, that's where the residential properties are. In fact, you can barely see one particular home right in the middle there. Those are white rocks that are in the foreground. Are you filling that green space we're looking at in the foreground with the building? You see the white rocks right there. It's between the white rocks. And yes, it's to the left of that. Is where that proposed building goes from. Yes. So anyways, what we're trying to say is that from a visual standpoint, there's also, there's a wonderful screening there already. We're proposing to supplement the existing berm with not only the earthen berm, but also with additional landscaping there. And to answer your question, the building is about 300 feet away from the property line. How high is the berm? How high is the berm? A berm can be an effective sound blocker. It's been there for quite a while. It's pretty substantial. Here's an ortho map. I mean the earth part of the berm, not the tree line. So in the pocket, there is the noise assessment. So getting to the last two comments from staff. It does appear that the berm is doing exactly that. Are we good on lighting? Do we want to move on to noise? Yeah, I think they've offered to move it down to nine o'clock. So if we go to page 31 of the packet Delilah. The staff comment so Delilah doesn't have to flip back and forth. Without having modeled, without having particular expertise on noise analysis, staff notes the applicant appears to have modeled backup alarms only on the commercial parking spaces east of the building and not at the commercial parking spaces to the south and recommends the board discuss this omission with the applicant. So that is a comment based on the text of the noise analysis. It describes how the modeling was done. And I'm wondering if you should add some light on that. I can talk just quickly about it. So I guess there was a mistake in what was modeled. Initially RSG who's the consultant who did the noise analysis thought there was backup alarms. Long story short is Adam Busca does not have any backup alarms on any vehicle associated with his business. So is that legal? So it's a non answering. Yeah, it's kind of a there are no backup alarms. So you're willing to accept the requirement that no backup alarms will be used. Well, our trucks don't have them. But if UPS comes in and makes a delivery, they may have one. UPS be making a delivery between 9am, 9pm and 7am. Operation shuts down at 5 o'clock. So anybody coming in is just coming in from a long distance and they wouldn't have the alarms. So if we said no backup alarms after, you know, between 8pm and 7am. We're almost done there. We're almost there. And then the next step comment, the final step comment is also related to noise. If you can go back to page 31. So you can see the requirement is that the noise level be below 45 decibels at residential property boundaries at below 60 decibels at commercial properties. The applicant is showing on this map the orange line. You can see just below if you scroll down a little bit. Yeah, the 45 is the orange line and the orange line does go over the residential property line. Sort of there. Yep. One of the things I wanted to point out about this is that green blob there is the berm. And as Frank pointed out, it sure looks like that berm works. But then there is no berm and the noise kind of jumps out. This is the 45. What you can see here is this is bulb-out area. So any noise coming from this particular land use seems to get mitigated by the proposed berm. But where there's no berm, there's this opening between the O'Brien building and the berm, you can see that this blooms blossoms right out. Now the interesting component of this particular area is this is Mr. Larkin's land. This is where the photo PV panels are located. And there's a very small corner here that actually is in the residential area. The other thing that was mentioned was the 60 DBA standard. That's the purple line here. It goes barely over the line by about 12 feet. And this is where David has met with the O'Brien representatives as well as the tenants here. And they indicated that they were fine with that particular line, as far as calling over the property line. And now you're proposing a fence, right? Excuse me? Oh, sorry, go ahead. We're getting there. But there were mitigation measures that were asked for as far as additional landscaping as well as an additional fence that the applicant has included in this application package. So they were happy, I understand, with regard to what ultimately would be the interrelationship between this existing building and its trucking component on this side and what's happening over here. And this was the last issue with regard to noise issues. Is more berm impractical? I think part of the problem is that that spillover is through the O'Brien parcel. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. The spillover is through the O'Brien parcel. So we're here to talk about the Busco parcel. These are the lot lines. Yeah. So what you're saying is no, you can't make the berm bigger. Because it's not on the line. Oh, actually, because it's not on your property. Exactly. So does this model just need to be updated to reflect the fact that there's no backup alarms? And does that solve the problem? So I talked to RSC about that. My understanding is, yes, this model represents backup alarms. And as annoying and piercing as a backup alarm is, and I'll back up a little bit, you know, this noise aren't in. I can't remember exactly. It's a four hour average or something. Is the one hour average or something? I think so. Long story short is a backup alarm is only in existence for seconds. So even though we are deleting that highly annoying thing that you would not like, it actually probably doesn't really reduce the average DBA very much because it's only being induced for such a minor amount of time. So the good news is there is no backup alarm, and that's what people would hear. But yet you're over the decibel limit. So what? Well, what about, I mean, looking at this, is there a fencing solution just in this small area or something? Well, whose property is that that you're next to? O'Brien? Yes. So just a couple things, a little bit to Frank's earlier comments. Yes, all these people have been notified of this hearing, and not only that, we have reached out to all of them. Specifically, I know I shared it with Marla, communication specifically relating to the noise with O'Brien. So they were given the study, they've seen it, and it's, Marla can tell you that I pointed it right out blatantly. And Adam, I did O'Brien, and Adam did correspond with the residential people directly and shared the noise survey with them as well. So it only hits a couple of parcels, right? It hits the backyard of one parcel. One parcel? Is it the yard or wetland, or is it, I don't know? No, I don't know if we can go back to that. Yeah, I know. I was going to mention that nobody's here, but no offense, guys. But, you know, if you could get the, whoever the one or two owners are in that back parcel to say they're happy, they're fine, is that okay from a... Well, the problem with getting a current owner to say, okay, you know, could be your brother-in-law who's okay. And then the next guy is not okay. Yeah, good point. And this is permanent. I mean, conceptually. So the noise that generates these 45 decibels is just truck and... Truck idling. Truck idling for three minutes because they auto shut off. Auto shut off. Auto shut off for three minutes. So, and that was interesting. Just, I don't know much about noise, but it was interesting talking to O'Brien about it because they actually hired RSG to do the rock crushing for the O'Brien farm project or whatever. And like, you know, they were in the thick of this noise at that time, and I think they probably talked to you at that point, and they looked at me with, like, why are you talking to me about 65 decibels? Like, we were talking about much greater things and, you know, rock crushing and all that kind of stuff. Fuel oil delivery truck. What's that? Fuel oil delivery truck. Yeah, I don't have a problem with it, but the issue is it's going over to residential, and so the question is, do we have the right to wave out of this, or no? Right, so I was just checking the LDRs. The LDRs, this is part of the Appendix A performance standards, and the section says it shall be a violation of these regulations for any property owner to create or allow the creation of noise in excess of the following stated limits in the city during the hours of midnight to 8 a.m., and then it says 45 DBA based on a one-hour average, measured at any point where the property on which the noise emanates joins any property used for residential purposes. So basically, if you spill more than 45 decibels on an hour average on a residential property, then you are in violation of these regulations. If I put on my ray hat, he sits like this, and he says, that's illegal. Very good. I'm sorry, I remember when Bambino's was operating behind my house 300 yards away. And I couldn't get the city of South Burlington before its current enlightened administration to do anything at all about it. So it's between the hours of 12 a.m. and 8 a.m., right? That's the problem. Whose property is that where the line dips down? That's not O'Brien's, is it? It's John Larkin. Who? Larkin? I think the answer to your question is it's Scott Pennington's home. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, it's somebody's house? Well, yeah. That's his backyard. Oh, geez. Have you talked to him? Yeah, yeah. I shared the noise report with him. Did he understand it? I think he used the word for the city of South Burlington. Fine. Did he understand it? I don't know. Of course not. He asked me for a copy of it. He reviewed it. We emailed back and forth. But the problem we're running into here is that really our duty is not contingent on what Mr. Pennington thinks or doesn't think. Isn't there any way to get together with Mr. Pennington and construct what needs to be constructed to get under 45 decibels? Let's stop pussy-footing around and talk about what the solution is. That's the solution to be legal. That's the quote phrase. Let me ask you something. This is during, I forget, the hours. 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. If you didn't allow your trucks during that period of time to do anything but just drive up the driveway and stop in front of the building. Did you just say 8 a.m. though? As it reads in here... If it's 7, then we're good. No, if it's spilling over... Midnight and 8 a.m. Between midnight and 8 a.m., then that's where it becomes an issue. Is that idle? Is some of this reflecting idling? It's all idle. That's the noise. The noise we're talking about is an idling truck. Not the beep-beeps. We are talking beep-beeps. Technically it's in there. But they're actively operating it first thing in the morning. And all the trucks are oriented outwards. So there's really very limited bee being modeled anyways. Did a Ryan do a noise? Their property has trucks also. A lot of the security trucks. They're all around the right-hand side though. If you're looking at that picture. The left-hand side of a Ryan's is just vehicles. Regular cars. So I guess they're just far enough away. Dave Marshall is just catching a little bit here. Why don't we see if we can... It looks like we have a little bit of opportunity to enhance the berm in the direction that it needs to go. And we will send that topography to RSG. Because we're all looking at this thing. We're looking at a very small sliver of noise that are technically over. I don't really do much but I understand what you're wrestling with. So let's just see if we can get that line moved over another 5 feet. How much over by the way are you? It's got to be feet. I don't mean the feet. I mean the decibels. What are they? There's a 45 decibel line and that line is... That's the orange line, right? Just to answer your question. Interpreting, this is 45, that's 50. That means you're at 46 right now so we need to melt off 1. Oh so you've added the parcel line there now too. So this represents the residential component. And this is the... So the point I'm getting at is maybe adding a little bit to the end of the berm. Might do the trick. And Dave Marshall looks like we have an opportunity to do just a little bit. Maybe that's enough is what I'm saying. We were sketching out it was basically taking this nose back up into this location. No I understand. That's why I asked the question. Because it's so small it would be enough. How much do you got to gain? So we're cautiously optimistic. Thank you. Well with that we could probably set a date for the continued hearing. It'd be 9 o'clock. I think you're absolutely right, Fred. That's a good idea. So I was going to suggest when we were just talking about the aesthetics that perhaps we could jam them in for the next hearing date. But that means I need everything by Friday. Now that we're talking about revising grading and getting RSG involved. Is that realistic? Or would you prefer to be on July 16th? I can't speak for RSG. I'm the one who corresponds to RSG. Is that okay? I don't know. If we push Dave Marshall to give everything to you. But maybe the RSG comes when I can get it. Does that need to be part of the package is what you're saying? Yeah it needs to be part of the package. And I need time to review it. So the revised package needs to be to me by close of business Friday in order to be fully incorporated into this. For the July 2nd date. Or July 2nd. Let's go for it. We should also note that there is a letter from Dave Crawford about volunteering to do a pilot project to assist in creation of a template maintenance landscape plan. So thank you very much for doing that. Very kind. Entertain a motion to continue. Public comment. That's right. Public comment. Okay. It was a good dialogue. We're trying to figure out some way of helping us and not getting them overregulated. This was a compromise. Great. Thank you for putting in more trains and trying to look really good. Thank you. That's good. I would move that we continue final plan application SD 1912 and site plan application SB 1907 for July 2nd. Second. It's been moved from second. Continue to July 2nd. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you very much. Thank you. Good to see you. All right. So I have not received a requested continuation date for the next two items on the agenda. We have space on July 16th. The applicant did not provide a reason for their continuation. So it's difficult for me to guess whether that's going to work for them or not. Just a matter of note. The next date has. Sorry. The July 16th date already has a continuation. Oh, no, July 2nd. They have a continuation already of something that they've already continued without being heard. I'm not sure what their sort of long-term plan is, but at this point they've got three applications that they're just sort of pushing along. So I don't know if the board wants to say July 16th because it's the soonest or if they just want to go right ahead to August 20th. So let the applicant sign on whatever's going on. Well, the fact that they're not here means that we can decide what we want to do. I also would note that they haven't paid their continuation fee. And so I'm not going to put them on the agenda if I don't get that. But we can make a conditional motion to continue to either July 16th or August 20th as the board chooses. And what is on August 6th? August 16th. Recess. Oh, there's nothing between the 16th and the 20th? August 20th. I would move that we continue conditional use application CUN 1901 and continue to sketch plan SD 1910 for August 20th. Second. Second. We continue this to August, we continue these two applications to August, what was it? 20th. 20th. Is that all right? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Next item on the agenda is minutes of January 29th, February 19th, May 21st and June 4th. I didn't see those minutes. May 21st and June 4th were in the packet. They were not. I am so sure they were in there too. All right. I believe you guys, it's an error on the part of our website person. We'll catch up with them next time. So moving on, 14 other business. Last words. It's been a hoot. How long has it been for you? It's been about five years. Yeah. Yeah. Five? Two terms. Two terms, but I think the first one was two years, this one was three. I think. I don't know. Frank's been reappointed. I asked Kevin who the other appointees were and he said he couldn't remember. So we will all find out when the city council minutes come out. Were you there, John? No, I was watching Frank. I watched Frank on YouTube and he's excellent. Whoa. Very handsome man. Wonderful. Wonderful. Well, I'm not going to take that all that seriously given the source. And that's it. That's it. 903. End of South Brunswick involvement. Thank you so much. Thank you, Bill. Thank you, John. I have a couple of draft decisions.