 Okay, so Bill, if you check your microphone morning, check your microphone morning. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Mm-hmm. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, now check your microphone. Okay, we're live. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so I'm wondering about these things. Okay, so in two dimensions it looks like they're close to each other and they could be connected. I think the challenge is that there's a four foot grade change and there probably would need to be stairs involved. I'm not sure there's a strong desire line between the two. I know when I arrived at the rink and I'm at rink two and I parked in that northern lot, you can just go right into that rink there. And of course vice versa, or now you can enter into the middle. But if I arrived and parked at the north, I'm not sure I would walk back to this entry. We're all familiar with further thoughts. The question is whether to connect those sidewalks. There's also the gravel wetland located between them which is also a further depression. They're all connected inside. You're not getting rid of that connection. Correct, there's more connection inside now. The little sidewalk that you see on the lower left photograph there basically runs right here. This is primarily a service access to supply stuff to the cafeteria and the kitchen. So I understand the difficulty of linking these two. This one is primarily going to the north parking lot and this one is primarily fed by the parking in this area. I think if we could do it gracefully, we probably would, but the grade change is pretty significant in the presence of that little gravel wetland. Bart, do you feel there's a strong need for that connection? The building connector on the inside is really care-accessible. And if you read the steps on the exterior connection, that would be a problem for people to meet. Yes, I should say one of the more popular activities that goes on in here, the friend who's disabled and plays sled hockey, I think he actually would kind of enjoy the stairs. But you're right, someone who's typical. But sometimes you say, hey, only able-bodied people come here to play the game, and there's a real need to have good access. Point of contact. Staff company three. Apart from that, do you sign? Yeah, I don't know that there was an intention of the signing of the parking spaces. No, so this was a proposal from staff to clean up something that is no longer the reality of the operation of the facility. You know, we understand from talking to those who are involved in coordinating uses that there are agreements in place and discussions about when events are scheduled and the parking spaces are no longer operationally assigned. So our recommendation was to remove this artifact so that it didn't become a gacha in the future. So this is an operating agreement of some type, or a deed research, or what is it? It was in a decision. I didn't go so far as to look into the land records. Yeah, I don't think there's ever been any assigned parking of any kind. We're aware of that. So this will help bring us into compliance to make this change. I think we agree with that. Staff company number four. This was around landscaping and there is a tally of the proposed landscaping and costs included in that. In addition to trees and shrubs were the landscaping associated with the gravel wetland and you would appreciate that consideration. But I think the staff comment is questioning whether it should just be for trees and shrubs which would necessitate more trees and shrubs to meet the prescribed amount based on total construction costs. So staff comment on this was related to the board's direction that the board is willing to provide relief from the required minimum landscape value being in trees and shrubs if the standards of 13.06 are otherwise met. Looking at the site, the site does not meet the standards of 13.06. There are far fewer than the required minimum shade trees for the parking areas. Therefore, based on the board's precedent on this, we thought the board would be inclined to require the applicant to bring the landscaping closer to the requirements of 13.06 before allowing credits for things that are not trees and shrubs. I think that's very sensible. Why should there be anything other than compliance? That's what she said. We do have discretion to say, well we'll allow some grounds. I think I understand what Frank's saying. Frank's saying why doesn't it have to be brought in full compliance rather than closer to compliance? Because the city should be able to do that. Right. So the reason we thought closer to compliance was appropriate is because the applicant is not making any changes that affect the portions of the site that are non-compliant. They're only affecting the front, whereas the non-compliant portions are the parking areas to the side. So they're pre-existing, I think is the point. I can't speak to whether the landscaping specific requirements were in place when the original rinks were built, but as Marlis said, I think it's the existing parking that is there and we're not proposing to change that our meeting compliance. So what we've proposed tonight meets compliance with the distinction that we get the total required cost with some things other than trees and shrubs, which includes the rain garden. Which includes what? The gravel weapon, sorry, the stormwater management which has the weapon plants in it. We have the history of allowing it to be included. So the big question in my mind, and maybe it's not in your mind, but the question in my mind is do we want to start linking up the parking area and putting trees in the parking area? Because that is the, if I understand correctly. It doesn't have to be to physically alter the pavement area. It could be placed, if you want to pull up, oh, the more zoomed outside plan. Maybe the page, yeah, one more page. There you go. You can see at the bottom there, you know, there's some perimeter trees. At the top, there's no perimeter trees shown in the parking area or around the parking area. So the requirement is for perimeter shade trees. Perimeter doesn't necessarily mean that they're in cut out islands. They could be literally there when they have them. So staff suggestion was not to require additional pavement removal, but just to spread the landscaping out. And it's room to the north end? Yes. Is that where we're talking about? And also on the south, there's some trees, but not enough to meet the standard. Does it make sense to require them to plant trees on the north side? Of the way. Yeah, right where they are. The sun is generally south, down in the atmosphere. Plus, there's not much. Definitely. Thanks, Frank. Follow me if at all is going according to the plan. Right. Plus, there's not much visibility. And most of the access, most of the approach, most of the activity is to the southern side, southern west, not the sides of the building. No, keeping in mind the shade tree requirement is not just to keep your car from getting very hot. It's also to provide screening, but also, and this is going to become important, hearing two weeks hence, is to reduce the heat island effect of large parking areas. I think we have a tremendous objection to, you know, everybody, these are good goals. There is that fairly large solar development to the north of that north parking lot. So I think some caution ought to be taken with regard to throwing shade on those panels. Can we leave it to the developer to decide exactly where the location is and simply impose the requirement? Do you have a scope of the additional requirement in mind? I believe that based on the other comments that are next, this hearing may not be closed tonight anyway. So they may have an opportunity to make some corrections. Can you show us a landscaping plan? Well, we quote have one, but we'll get a handle. Yes, I would just add that we did add some, it's a small enough site that we really couldn't fit as much landscaping as the prescribed amount required, so you'll see some across if we go back to the landscaping plan. Kevin, how is your site small? So the lot is shown on the plan. The project site. Is there a restriction on you doing work outside of the immediate product area? Just common practice. Usually you have an area of a building and that's the area that you landscape this building. It doesn't have any parking. The point out is there are five trees along the existing parking on the west side that provide added shade to the existing parking. As Rolf said, we'd be happy to, I think we're talking about a small delta between the amount made up with shrubs and trees and if we need to add a few more trees to meet the ordinance and the board's desire, I think we can do that. I was just pointing out since the site where we're actually developing is mostly encompassed by this building, we had to go beyond that site to add some trees. Yeah, and I didn't mean to come off as an accusation. It was a genuine question because I don't fully understand how the agreement works between Cairns and the city. I think the next comments were related to Sugar Maples as a poor choice and I have a call into the city artist and Andrew Noonan but haven't heard back yet. Okay, I have some additional comments from those guys. Andrew Noonan is the person who will be responsible for maintenance of this because he's the DPW person in charge of parking maintenance and then the city arborist, these were comments provided by them together, it's okay if I read them out. Due to water and electric and the fact that the food trucks set up along the island, that isn't going to be the best location to try to establish trees. Andrew had the same concern about tree shrubs by the bump out due to plowing and salting. That's where everything from the road ends up and when banks get high or if it starts to drift, we have to be able to lean back to the banks in that location. So Andrew was concerned about the trees in that sort of center island. Andrew and Craig were concerned about these this road trees here. Not being a long-term viable thing. Does he think that is there an appropriate species in it for a location like that? I think they're concerned about any trees in that island. It's kind of a narrow island. I know they just took them out in City Hall because they're having trouble getting them to drive. This is where we often see the tug-and-pull between the ordinance wanting trees near the parking and those that need to maintain and kind of pushing back. So what if we solve a couple of problems and just expanding these plans beyond what you're calling the budget there? I haven't seen there's a lease apparently. What's the scope? What's the arrangement? As far as... What if a legal place? Well, legally the city is out there. One second. Maybe I can shortcut it. If no one objects, if you're going to object to explaining the all what you're calling the project area. And no one else is here to object. And we don't object. We don't have to solve the question exactly what the legal dimension is. I'm just going to be hard-pressed to explain it to you. I thought... Usually I like to read them. We don't have to solve it if we're only... As far as a good solution to Mr. Neumann's objection and my desire to see what you can do, you can just pick a nicer spot to put the trees in. So... You can do that. Let me know if you have trouble reaching Craig and Andrew and I'll be happy to facilitate that conversation. It might be a cyclism if then, you know, it would really be inappropriate. It's most orange. We'll also take that out. Yep. We can add that to the plan. Very good. Number seven. We can add that note to the plan as well. I'm right. Why is that? Yeah, we thought right by the front door would be a nice place for bicycle racks. We can do that. The new front door. The new front door. Yeah, there are existing bike racks by the old front door. We can add some more. Which one? Number nine? Yeah, the buildings are permitted for a large amount of flows and visitors, and there's about an incremental individual that might be added and we don't really believe that that necessitates an additional flow allocation for water or sewer. And you're doing the engineering to remove that sewage. Yep. So that's just removed the signage from the plan. I think that's fine. We'll come back and apply with a separate look for that. Well, I just want to clarify this because we haven't proposed any signage. I think we just show existing signs. The elevations, I think there was a sign. Yeah, there was one. Oh, okay. I was thinking that's the traffic sign feature. Okay. Pretty much all along. It's basically on the little parapet over that canopy. But that's a new sign. That is a new sign. Yep. So just scrub it, but you can come in and get a separate permit for us. Sure. So it sounds like the outstanding issue here really is the dressings to the landscape. It feels about continuation or closing. It feels a little nervous to be to close without specifics. I think we're going to come back for one more show. Can we have a site visit with a revised plan? I think it's fine with us. Can you talk about it briefly? Can you tell us a little bit about what the addition of the eight-pounder skirt would have to be used? I'm sorry to say that again. The purpose of the eight-pounder skirt for the addition? Did you get any floor plans at all, Carl, Marlowe? I didn't see some flash pot. You know, we don't have action. It's predominantly... No, we did. It's used. It's predominantly... I noticed I'm really interested in seeing the floor. I don't know. Okay, I just point my finger at most of these things. So it'd be helpful if this were pocheted, but this is the outline of the existing rink to the north. This is the existing connector between the two rinks. And this is the outline. You don't really see this underwall, but... So basically what's under my hand here, this is all new space. These are two new locker rooms on the far north side. This is a viewing area for the second rink. Basically, this is elevated above the rink, so people in this space have a really nice vantage point of the action on rink two. We've never had that. We've always had it in rink one. This is the proposed new entry vestibule lobby. This is an administrative office. This is another small office. We're moving the pro shop into this area so people can rent skates and buy equipment. This is the cafeteria. This is the kitchen right here. And this is mostly mechanical and food storage back here that's fed by that door that I indicated previously. So basically we're moving the exit. It currently is here. We're moving the exit from rink two to this location. So we'll talk a little bit about the grade change between these two. That's pretty much the sum of it. Thank you. So is this to give one a confusion? I thought there was going to be a recreation division here for the basketball courts. That's older than older. Yeah, there's been discussion about South Burlington Recreational Facility. They would sit to the south of this facility. I don't know where that stands. I know we talked with the architects of that project for a while. How much more? It sounds like we're continuing. I recommend July 2nd. We're full for June 18th. July 2nd gives you until June 21st to get me any revisions. Okay. Is that doable? That sounds good. Thanks for having me. Kevin? I'd like to say thank you to Mark, particularly Mr. Karens for all the years we've gotten. A great service, at least. Yeah, it's a great service. It's a fun activity. Thank you. Our comments from the public before we can break up? David Crawford. Good afternoon. Representing natural resource committee. We commend the board for bringing up any applicant for the trees and bringing that into compliance in the right direction. We appreciate that. The maintenance is an issue that can be addressed between the applicant and the city. It just should be somehow noted that it will be taken care of. Somebody is assigned to take care of the future maintenance. Of the landscaping? Landscaping, yeah. The other thing is more of a personal one. The drive as a user and I commend you for being so successful and it's really a wonderful thing. But the access road is really a problem as you undoubtedly know. I don't think that's, for this application, when you brought up about another facility possibly on the site, it is challenging to get in and out there. I'm sure you will realize that. Because it's so successful? Because it's so successful. So how do we not that? I just bring it up. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Tony Karens. And maybe give you a little perspective on why we're doing this. And this was built in 1995 and we were the only one in the park. And then we built the second rank five years later because it was so successful. But what's happened is that that park has developed, as you know, even with a name change in those years and a lot of things have come in around us. And what that's done is put a lot of pressure on how we operate because the parking is used by not only us, but by everybody that uses the park. And the city's very good about maintaining it, but I agree with you that that black top's deteriorated over time. But it gets a lot of use. And getting used this time of year with baseball and so on and soccer and so on. The reason for the addition for the central entrance, to be honest with you, is right now you have to go in one side of the rink on the south side and you have to get to rink two by crossing through rink one through a passageway, which really is very ineffective. And when you have a game going on in rink one, or excuse me, rink two, and somebody wants to get there and you have two games going on, they don't know how to go and they don't know how to charge because I'm going to rink one, but really they're going to rink two. So it's impossible to maintain it. So we decided to do a central entrance and have people be able to go in the central entrance and go right to rink one and left to rink two. Solves the problem of how do you charge? That could be a, the mini mites could be skating on that rink and it could have a high school game on rink one. So it solves the problem of how to charge and how to be effective with people moving. Plus we get a bigger snack bar and a more viewing area for rink two, which is good. And a conference room and some other ancillary rooms which are needed. But that's the basics for why we're coming. As far as the trees are concerned, I'm not sure which tree is the right one, but the maintenance of it right now is done by the city. And it doesn't matter to us which species it should be, whichever is the best. But I think a lot of this tree issue has come about after we built. And I don't know that we're necessarily responsible for what's happened since, but the building that was supposed to go in, the second building for the city, the one that was just, you know, the tax that was going to go in and they were going to build another facility, which I guess got voted down this past March. I don't know where that stands. That may be a dead issue. I really don't know. We were intimately involved in that building because we were going to connect rink one with that new facility if it happened. And we've been in conversations with Kevin about that happening and we were well aware. In fact, we were going to try to change some of the design elements of this building to match that one because I thought that was a very good design. But that didn't happen. So here we are. Thanks very much. It's very helpful. There's no continued motion for your opinion. It's a continued site plan application. SB1913,趨jewel, a second. You said to continue this to July 2nd? I'll have to say that. Opposed? Opposed? Thank you very much. Thank you. It was July 2nd. Thank you very much. Thank you. How was that going to end? Thank you. Did you send that? Yes, sir. The next item on the agenda, continue master plan of NP-18-01, preliminary plan of creation of SB-18, and continue to develop the public associate follow-up fee for a planned unit development of two lots developed with one single-family loan. The planned unit development is to consist of 95 single-family loans, one unit in two-family loans, 35 loan units in multi-family loans, one existing single-family loan, conservation of 15.8 acres on site, and conservation of approximately 55 acres on site. So 67.4 transfer development rights at 1505 versus street. And we're going to turn over chairmanship at it before to Dan Foller. Hi, welcome to the development report. All right, we need to state your name for the record. Be your accountant with Dorset Meadows. Paul O'Leary, O'Leary-Burton Civil Associates. You've been sworn in before, so why don't you go right into what the plans are at this time? Oh, we don't have too much additional to add. Two minor changes over what we saw last time. If you recall at the last meeting, we had proposed an alternate phasing plan that removed the TDR units from the phasing schedule. And we have decided to go back to the original phasing plan. So our phasing plan now includes all of the units, including the units that would require a TDR. So we're back to the phasing plan that you had originally approved. A second minor change had to do with the multi-family units that abut Dorset Street. There was some discussion on what the report setback was. Staff addressed it in their comments. This conflicting regulations in one area specifically talks about a minimum of 20 feet. The more general regulations talk about 50 feet back from Dorset Street. We located the units further back in the road so that the portraits and all of the unit is a minimum of 20 feet back from the future Dorset Street right away. Other than that, the application has been reviewed previously. So the phasing that we discussed has gone. Correct. We're back to the original thing. It's where we were in January, which would require transfer development rights in order to build out all the units. Correct. And the staff comments, page two, asking us to discuss whether to grant the applicant's request for continual use to extend the regulations of SEQ and the R50 feet into SEQ and R50 feet. We had discussed that in quite a bit of detail before. We had proposed that we provide some sort of barrier, either be a boulder or a fence or something, too, specifically to delineate where that line was. The concern was that it's folks in those kind of new units might encroach back on the protected area. And where did we land with that? So where are we with the? I think that's what staff is asking. And we're quite sure of this, where we ended up on that. Right. So I reviewed the minutes and my notes from those meetings. And it seemed like the board was a little split on whether they were concerned about the location of the homes. I've zoomed in to the two homes that are closest. All of the homes that are to the south are single family. And this represents the building envelope area. It doesn't mean the building would be that big, but it means the building could be anywhere within that box. So in all of these cases, the property line is well behind where the building would be. The only place that's not the case is where these four units, two new boxes, where the back of the building is very close to where the property line would be and where the regulations of the NRP would apply. At the previous hearing, the applicants are protected. Indicate they could probably design those homes and not require steps. So that would create a little bit of a buffer. As shown here, there are some steps. The applicants architect also indicated they would be willing to look into angling those homes so that there was a little bit more space behind there. I just didn't see an update, so I wanted to make sure that everybody was comfortable, because they had all the information they needed for the decision on this. The issue with angling the new footprints, is that a suggestion that the architect had? Yeah. Yeah. Well, are you going to? To avoid having to do that. The issue for me is always the same, if you're going to sell the units on the limited piece of land to the buyer, then I object it. Not that I don't. That's what they're going to be. The land would be owned all in common. Is that what we're talking about footprint loss versus? Yeah, no, we don't generally do the footprint loss. So it would be common land underneath the land. So for example, 90 and 91 is on a single plot of land. Yes. 90 is not going to be able to tell anybody in 91, don't come on this side of the land. That's correct. For them, our 89 and 88 are the same piece of land. Well, I get it. Yeah. I mean, it's a piece of 99. We certainly would be willing to come back for final to show some alternatives for those two buildings. I agree. I agree. Yeah, we may be able to hang on. We may be able to reconfigure them slightly. We can certainly give her the steps. We also might combine with a proposal to put a split rail fence or something along that back line just to make sure that nobody goes out there back here and goes into the area. Mark, on the phone, what do you think about the idea of creating some delineation with architecture, like a split rail fence or rocks? I mean, the problem, regardless of whether you delineate the split rail fence, which should be prepared minimum or else you're going to guarantee creep into the common land, is that there's no, the stairs come down pretty much other than on 91. They pretty much all come right down into the property line. So if you delineate with a split rail fence, you have maybe food of three feet working back. I just think that this is trying to push in too much for the four units that fit them into this location. You don't have the room for them. And I know we have big folks with discussions, and this is just, oh, well, it's just the four units. But I think you're trying to fit too much into this location. And it's an exercise that seems a little futile to, I mean, I hear that maybe it can be designed so you don't have those steps down. But even without the steps, you're still, you know, you're backing up to a split rail fence that's feet off the back of the island. Back in January, we had talked about boulders behind those four, and then the screening was behind 82 through 87. What's the boulders behind the four that we're talking about right now? Yeah, what I recall was that I was fine with the several proposals, you know, angling, taking the steps away. I didn't have the concerns that Mark had, but it would be a little narrow because sending point of this is to be affordable. Yeah, I think if we could zoom in, I have a couple of ideas. One, we could just move 91 and 90 to the north and take it into that sort of triangular area. And then on 88 and 89, we could redesign this unit to have the stairs going off the side as opposed to out of the back because we'd have a nice side yard. If we move 90, 91 up to the north, then we'd have a nice side yard for 89, and he already has a nice side yard. So that would be fine. And then a boulders or a split rail fence. Again, I prefer boulders just because no one has to maintain them, but either way is fine. There's one other thing, a split rail fence to me is more mobile. And on the other hand, like you mentioned, the mowing, the maintenance, this is different than somebody's yard where the creed that Martin, I think Martin talked about creed, it definitely happens. No question about it with people's lawns or individual property with a lawn mower. This is mowing the mower. This is a hired outfit or a landscaper to mow the lawn. So they will adhere to that, to the property line. So long as it's deep marked here. I just did a quick measurement on my computer here. And I think not a little bit. The smallest distance as shown right now between the building, not including the stairs, but between the building and the property line is 8.9 feet. How does the board feel about something like a condition saying that setbacks on these four units has to be 10 feet, and I have to show up that final? Yeah, I think that's sensible. We're OK with that. Yeah, that's good. Cool. We're OK with that. Thanks, guys. What are the construction lines around the duplexes? What are they? What are they supposed to indicate? Are these ones on the way? Yeah. What are they there for? Yeah, it just shows the box that we're going to set the unit inside. It's not meant to be a property line. Building envelope? Yeah, it wasn't building it up within an hour. Gotcha. It's like the single-bramble box. I'll show building envelopes. Yeah, they can only be the building envelope or a tunnel since there's going to be a design by the end of the day. No, we don't. We can remove those. Yeah, I would. The single-bramble is something that you can't hit within the compound of that area. You're going to get exactly where it's going to go. Any other comments from the board? Any other comments from the applicant at this time? No. OK. So now we're going to open up the public hearing portion of this hearing. But I want to talk a little bit about process first. This is the preliminary plat. After tonight, we have an option to continue this for further discussion, or we can close it. If we close it, then we deliberate and issue a ruling in 30 days. And then we go to final plat in which we start this process again and people can testify. We want to make sure that anyone that has, from the public, that has not had an opportunity to either write or speak to us, have that opportunity tonight. If you have something new to say that you've testified before, we'd like to hear that too. There's lots of things happening in the periphery with regards to the Dorset Meadows project, which some of you may want to discuss. But we want to definitely hear from anyone that hasn't had an opportunity to speak. And I'm going to ask you to speak directly to the development view board. And we are going to put time limits on it as we do with large hearings. But we want to make sure that anyone that hasn't had the opportunity to speak absolutely gets a chance to address the board. So if there's anyone that would like to talk about this project, just raise your hand and I'll call on you. Matt, can I ask you a couple of things first? One, this is both the master plan and preliminary plat. That's right. So I guess that's not a question. And then the second thing is the board's received a number of public comment letters since the last hearing. I just would ask you to acknowledge those letters and state that the board to take those into their consideration over the session. Thank you, Marla. Yes, we have received letters from Brenda Ballone, Christa Coran, Roseanne Greco, Haley Harmon, Darren Peters, Alfred Rosa, Margaret Rosa, Kay Francis Shep, Daniel Samp, Hart Shields, David Weisskohl, Karen Paul Mayer, and Adam Ullano. Anyone like to speak? I've spoken before, but I'd like to speak after others. If you have something that you'd like to add to your testimony before, we'd love for you to come up and talk. I'm going to put a timer on for three minutes. I'm going to politely say some words. It won't take long. If you could first state your name for the record. My name is Darryl W. Peters. And the first time I ever spoke in South Bromington was for this board at the very first hearing for Dorset Nuttos. And so I got my courage up. And I asked sort of a general question about the DRV. And I was told with a fairly long and explicit response where you made very clear the role of the DRV is to enforce the rules. You said, we don't make it out. If you're trying to save the spotted owl or something, you have to go to the planning commission. And you were very clear about that. And in fact, at some point, I think somebody said, you're in the wrong room. You don't belong here. All we do is enforce the rules. So my question is, if you're enforcing the rules, why are you entertaining a proposal that has TDRs? Because South Bromington doesn't have TDRs right now. They were declared unconstitutional. Now, I understand that's under review. But why not wait and hear the result of that? It's under appeal. Why would you entertain something that is blatantly against the rules when you were so clear with me that you couldn't do that? I'm just mystified. Thank you for your comment. I'll, because I agree with you as a practical, I'll try to answer the question. I do think that the developer ought to consider what you're saying, but it's for the city to decide pending the review, whether it's going to follow the lower court opinion or follow its own regulations and so far as it's deciding to follow its regulations. It's open to question whether we can, whether we even have the discretion not to follow the regulations while the matter is pending review. I realize that's not it. It doesn't feel gut-satisfying to hear that. But I think that's a legal situation, at least, as I understand it, and I think it's the premise on which the Board is acting. Thank you, Bill. All right. Can you state your name for the record? Sure. Claudia Miller. I've got it. Hi. Based on the same subject we were just talking about. And I have been reading all the documentation around the city rules. And the South Burlington Land Development Regulation state that existing natural resources on each site shall be protected through the development plan, including conservation areas shown in the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan maps the primary conservation area that South Burlington has pledged to protect and says that primary conservation areas are off limits to development regardless of their setting or context. So if you're following the rules, I mean, the comprehensive plan said was paid for by the taxpayers, was voted on by the taxpayers, that these lands need to be protected. And the LDRs support that. So I don't understand why the DRB or the city staff, to be honest, don't follow the rules that were put in place for this city. That's my comment. Thank you, Mr. Commander. Anyone else like the comment? It remains standing. You can. Could you state your name for the record and speak loudly enough that the microphone to pick up your voice? I think it can. Pick up my voice. My name is Ronald Schmucker. I live at 340 Dorset Heights. And we've lived there since 69, 70. And I've got to tell you, it is very disappointing to find a constant erosion of those land-use promises that were made to us in the beginning. I remember coming to municipal offices when I was first considering buying the property. I was told by, I think, the name of the gentleman who was acting as the city manager was Leclerc, something like that. He assured me that the southeast quarter would be for large lot development only. Now that large lot development has gotten smaller over the years and has gotten more variety in it and more definitions that I can't really explain. But it's very disappointing to make a commitment to live someplace because of it being used for agricultural and large lot development and find that it's constantly being eroded. That's what I want to say. And you're sitting here now listening to a project that is the ultimate of erosion of those promises. Thank you. Thank you, Ronald. Does anyone else like to come and make a comment? Come on, it was happening. Santa, could you say your name for the record? My name is Rosanne Greco. Thank you for hearing me. I won't repeat what's already been said. I will not repeat what I've said previously. But I do think, and I want to be very respectful in this, that perhaps when there was a change of planning staff, some things fell through the cracks. Now, I've read through quite a few of the staff comments. Nowhere in those staff comments do they point out the things you've heard here. What's said in our comprehensive plan? What's said in the land development regulations that says you abide by the comprehensive plan? Never once in the staff notes was it says that the Dorset Meadows Project was built on primary conservation areas, that as you just heard, quoted from the comprehensive plan, are off limits to development. These documents were likely written based on previous reports that the city commissioned, and all taxpayers paid for. I would hope some of those would be used, because they're very insightful. There are about eight of them. I brought two. One thing that we've never talked about yet, although the developers said they hadn't gotten around to it, and they thought it would happen in Act 250, was the impact on wildlife. So the city has commissioned a number of studies, two of which were by Arrowwood. They go through, they cite this very area. They call it the primary natural communities. And this is the exact area we're talking about. It appears very diverse in size of flora and fauna, home to five historic populations of rare plants. The Great Swat is likely the largest, most significant intact natural community occurring in the southeast quadrant. Preserving the integrity of this natural community shall be a priority for the conservation in South Burlington. Then it has specific recommendations. I won't read them all, but the one said, open space, including the large fields west of Dorset Street, should remain as unfragmented as possible and kept as open space. In the next one, which is a study on wildlife, they spotted 133 mammals. They cited where they are. There's a mapping here. And they are right where we're talking between spear and dorset streets and the open spaces. I don't have enough time to cite these, but I would certainly hope the staff would bring these to you because they are what form the basis of the documents that we didn't vote on the comp plan, obviously, but we did on the LDRs. So we have regulations. We have done studies. We have used taxpayer dollars to prepare these reports. They all say the same thing. This is primary land that should be off limits to development. So I encourage you to follow our city documents. Thank you very much. Good evening, everybody. Should we state your name to the record? Yes, Daniel South, MSK Attorneys in Burlington. I represent the members of SLS South Burlington, several of whom spoke here tonight. I just want to, Matt, you read off the names of some letter of authors, and you mentioned my name. I just want to confirm that you have my letter dated today. I did. We received it around 6.30 tonight. So I read it briefly before the hearing. OK, did the board members have physical paper copies of that? Because if not, I have some with me. I have a copy. Have the other board members had a chance to review it? I sent it to Ms. King probably around 12, 45 or so this afternoon. Yeah, she said it after, but we all have other jobs. Oh, absolutely. I'm not cast. I'm just questioning if you had a chance to look at it. Absolutely. Are you going to tell us what it says, or anything? If I can. That should be enough for everybody. Yes. Everybody have room for the next one? OK, so this letter addresses two issues, both of which you've heard a little bit about tonight. The first one is the TDR issue. And the second one is the primary conservation issue. The issue that is not in this letter, which is still an issue, but I'm not going to talk about it, is the issue of whether this body has jurisdiction to consider the preliminary plan and master plan applications. As you probably know, the Supreme Court ruled today that our appeal from Judge Walsh's decision was premature. Basically, what that means is that the ultimate determination as to whether the applications properly went from sketch to preliminary plan is not going to be determined until an appeal out of the final decision. But let's just talk briefly about the TDR issue. At the end of February, the environmental court in an appeal involving the spearmenos development struck down the city's TDR by law. It's invalid. It's invalid under state law and it's unconstitutional. There is no stay of that decision. That decision is the law that applies to the city. In fact, the city was a party to that case. In fact, the city's attorney filed a brief in that appeal three days ago. So this city is bound by the environmental court decision and lessen until it's reversed by the Vermont Supreme Court. I don't believe with the utmost respect that this board has the power to grant a application that includes TDRs when there is no such thing as TDRs in the city. That would be what's called ultraviries, which just basically means in English. The board acted beyond its power. I was saying that, but keep going. So I don't understand, and again, with the utmost respect, what the rush is. This land has been vacant and undeveloped for thousands and thousands of years. We're literally in the middle of a briefing in the Vermont Supreme Court on a threshold issue that's going to determine whether this project can be and I'm going to use round numbers here, 75 units or 150 units. Why not put the brakes on, wait and see what the Supreme Court says, and then make a decision? The Supreme Court affirms the lower court no TDR bylaw. It's simple, right? If it reverses, that's a different issue. The city is already working on a new bylaw, but that's it. Why take a chance and render a decision that includes TDRs when there's no such thing as TDRs and just gives the neighbors another appealable issue, which is that the board acted beyond its power by using a bylaw that doesn't exist. Think about it, it's common sense, there's no rush. Primary conservation area, another big issue. We have been for months detailing with letters, maps, handouts, discussions, this is the elephant in the room. It's very clear, the developer has not denied that a large portion of this project is in a primary conservation area. Mr. Coakman said, very astutely, many months ago, why not determine whether or not that's a problem now because if it is, and I'll quote Mr. Coakman, I think this is an accurate quote, the project is, quote, toast. For some reason that's lost on me, his suggestion to make that determination was not followed. My clients have spent a lot of time, energy, and frankly, money or among the DRB members about whether that's an issue. That there was a project here tonight where there was a discussion about a tree in a parking lot and whether it would be harmed by snow being pushed around a single tree in a parking lot in Carnes Park. That's good, okay, we're looking to protect trees. What about a primary conservation area that the state and the city have said is off limits to development? What about protecting that? Can we have some discussion on whether or not, I'd like to understand what the board's view is, and my clients would like to understand what the board's view is on whether there can be development in a primary conservation area. We don't think that there can be, it seems pretty clear to us from the LDRs that there can. What is the board's position on that? That's a question. Is that done in your comments? Well, I'd like to, I think there's an answer, I'd be interested to hear it. This is a dialogue, this is a public comment period. Now we'll go into discussions as long as I want to make sure you had your chance to say all of your comments. Okay, yes. Okay, thank you. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Is there any other comments from the public? Thank you very much, appreciate it. Thank you. Take your name for the record. My name is Sarah Dott, on a little different tactic. I think a lot of us have driven adjacent to this property this spring, and this spring has been the beginning of probably many springs and summers where we're going to see increasingly the effects of climate change. And that field where those houses are going to be has been partially a lake at many times this spring, certainly a waterway that's defined, it's not just a vague discoloration of the grass and the areas either side of that are spongy. So, that's just a common sense observation. I certainly wouldn't buy a house there. And I certainly agree with everything else that's been stated. Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to take the opportunity to make a public comment? Any discussion from the board? I would respond to Mr. Seth for the, hopefully for the benefit of his clients, so you know where I stand. I think you're wrong on the TDR as it applies to this matter. I think it's binding only in the case of which the matter was decided until the Supreme Court rules. It's arguable. I don't agree with you. I do agree with you on the conservation area argument. I think it is toast. I was actually quoting. I wish the developer would rethink his position in general. Given the risks he runs, he runs a huge risk. But whatever we decide to do about the TDR, I tend to think you're wrong in your argument. But I think the risk is very great that even if this board approves that he gets reversed on the TDR ground. But the developer, I guess, likes that risk better than having to go back to square one. I understand much. But I think we can do that. That's my comment. Mark? Yeah? Any last comments before? Take care. I agree with Frank. And I think there's a lot of our discussions about process. It's not a black or white area. And it's something that I know that I personally struggle with. But I think at the same time, if we have had the discussion and we've gotten opinion or influence in terms of moving forward with this, well, there is pretty major issues up in the air. But it's really the opposite. It's risk and we need to move forward. At this point, I think it might be we need to move forward with the application. And if things change in the future, then we don't have to go ahead. I think I've put it my way in on my issues over the needs in terms of the map and needs with the action development. And so I think that's my position. Nobody cares. Jen? I've said it before that while we don't engage after we hear comments, we take all the comments and deliberate on them among ourselves. We do take every comment seriously and hard. I agree, Jen. And just as a way to clarify, because so many people are saying just follow the rules, it's like, to me, it's like text analysis. I think I've said this before. It's like text analysis. You've got one text that says, this is the rule, the land development regulation. Absolutely follow map seven and eight. Look at map seven and eight. They say, don't follow me. I don't know what I'm doing. Those are not explicitly not trustworthy maps. Explicitly not trustworthy maps. So the right way to handle that is the way that development has been done for a long time, which is have experts come in, map the area that is that soggy area, and don't build it. If yourself the state approved 50 foot right away, 100 foot, excuse me, not right away, buffer zone, yeah. And so to me, basically, you need to redraw map seven and eight every time you have a development. And so, that's what I have. We've relied on, the map seven is a, it's a 30,000 foot view, and we rely on field mapping for developments. And when we're talking about primary conservation areas, what? I don't know how you would buy a home without relying on field mapping because you just can't see the log lines in map seven. I think we explained to the developer that there was a significant risk given the issues surrounding TDRs and giving the issues brought up by, by Barry Abel, the attorney, Mr. South. But I think it's clear that we need to close preliminary plan. So I would entertain a motion to close MP18-01 and SD18-29 of 1505 Dorset Mountain Master Plan preliminary plan. So shown. Second. Second. It's been seconded. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Oppose opposed? Any abstentions? Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Yes. Yes, sir. Next on the agenda. Site modification of SP, SP-19,000, MP18-34, MPR-150, MPR-150, 2000 September. To review a condition of condition four, it's to apply the zoning permit to be obtained within six months at 1500 Dorset Mountain, please move down. My name is Daniel Rort, I'm a lawyer here in the carries process, and I'm into the rules. Okay, and one fits in interest, he's part of the City Council. Which approval from October 4th, final plan approval, which our understanding has been met. I worked with Ray, preparing the notice of conditions that was required. We discussed a zoning permit. He indicated that it's a single family home. This property is a single family home, so do I have the three lines. The single family home was under contract to sell, and it was my impression from the meeting that because it was a single family home, it didn't meet a zoning permit. Ray gave me a certificate of compliance. He knew we were closing in a couple of days, and we sold a lot long. Staff has a different interpretation. They suggested that we come to you and ask that it be renewed about one specific condition. Have you seen the draft opinion? Yes. Okay. Do you have questions? No. Okay, questions, comments from the board? Questions, comments on the staff application for the public? Do we know the information for closed? We know that we closed SB 1911 seventeen-year-olds' group. The meeting is over. We closed this application. All the favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. That's on the agenda. Sightment application, SP19-12 of Merigio-Cobotrio to renew, I always hope I don't have that to her. Cappatrio. No. Sorry. Cappatrio. Cappatrio. Thank you. Sorry. To renew a condition of three to seven minutes in a rule which requires zoning permit to be obtained within six months, 1408, Hinesburg Road, which is the update. Thank you. To renew a condition of three to seven minutes in a rule which requires zoning permit to be obtained within six months, 1408, Hinesburg Road, which is the update. Thank you very much. And so if it wasn't clear before, this is the same situation on another property. That would be nice to say. That's on the agenda of like, back to the end of purpose. Conflicts of entry. We'll take a picture with our hand. You brought some of the truth all to choose from. Nothing but the truth on the tone of your portrait. I do. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So, I think that's on the agenda. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. So, just, you are going to get zoning permit this time within six months? Yes. Yes. Okay, comments, questions from the board? Comments, questions from the public? You already have. You're doing an emotional clause. I'm going to close SB1912, 1408, Hinesburg Road. Okay. I was moving this afternoon to close this application. I'll favor you. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstained. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. So, that's on the agenda. So, that's on the application. SB19-16, a standard rating of all the properties, policy, to subdivide an existing 21.7474 acre lot into five lots of .42 acres like M2, 1.89 acres like M1, 1.35 acres like M2, 5.86 acres like M, and 12.22 acres like L for the purpose of constructing projects south of Garden Street and 1.2, which will be reviewed under separate site application at Zero Market Street. So, the applicant sent me an email late in the game requesting continuation. It's only zero. They did not specify a date. July 2. July 2 is fine. Yeah. July 2 is fine. I move that we continue sketchman application SB19-16, a standard rating of all the properties, policy for July 2. Second. I move the second. We continue this for July 2. No, they will say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Opposed? Abstained. Thank you very much. And the minutes of July 1.5, 7.15, and May 1. May 1st. I do not see. No. So, did you not have any minutes for any questions? You're going to be something great. Item number 12, Other Business. Is there something other business for us to consider tonight? Thanks, everyone. We are closing at 8.24 p.m. Unbelievable. A minute. So, we have two deliberations. Deliberation is far out.