 Yeah, we're good to go this is a hybrid meeting take places out mobile and also virtually consume all members of the board in public communicating in real time. Planets that will provide soon instructions for public participation before the hearings come forward. All folks taking the meeting at the night in this will be done. We'll follow in accordance with this meeting. We'll continue to November 23rd 2021. Let's start by taking attendance. Paul first president. John Hamilton. President. Scott Wiley. President. Dave Selenio. David Turner. Chair Kelly is present as well. So we have one, two, three, four, five. So we do have a quorum. Okay. Very good. So tonight we've got two applications on the agenda. DP 20-18 which is the we're going to call it the catamount golf club residential subdivision. It's the official title is Ethan Allen holding LLC. Chris and the other is DP 09-01.23. That's a project to construct building H as in Henry County. It's a project to construct building H as in Henry County. Which is the restaurant in the urban park. So those are the two items on the agenda. First we'll go in. Before we go into the zoom overview, Emily, let's go into a public quorum. Is there anyone? Actually we should do the zoom first. Okay. There's a lot of tools on your toolbar. Keeping your camera on is optional. Use the microphone up arrow to mute and unmute. Please keep yourself muted unless it is your turn to speak. You can use the chat bar for zoom technical questions or to let us know if you would like to speak. You can also use the reaction bar. If you're joining in by telephone, press star nine to raise your hand or star six to mute and unmute. Tonight we will be using screen share. You can optimize your view by clicking view options next to the green toolbar. And using the side by side mode to drag the center slider bar to balance participants in the video feed and the document screen share. You can also use your telephone as a speaker or microphone by clicking the up arrow on the toolbar and choose leave computer audio. If you have any questions tonight about using zoom, please message Simon on the chat. Thank you. Okay, thanks Emily. Next up is a public quorum. This is an opportunity to reward anyone participating in this meeting who would like to leave a comment on items not on tonight's agenda. If you would please raise your virtual hand or call. I'm seeing no chats and no raised hands so far. Okay. Very good. Public Quorum. First up is the DVD 2018 which is a pre-app and now full of the DVD. And who is present on the app? I see Chris and Mr. fellow of familiar faces. Is there anyone else who would like to go with you or can you do Mr. I think it's just Chris. Okay. Mr. Chair. P. P. I'd like to I'd like to know that I'm going to be using my cell phones applications in the buddy Landon. Understood. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Sure. My name is Mr. My address is 05 05 05 05 05 Thank you. Name please. Mr. Thank you. Thank you. First up is this is a request for pre-app review in order to participate in growth management in 2022. This is a clerical pre-application its purposes for growth management. The catamount golf subdivision proposes 130 dwelling unit equivalents including affordable housing and it received growth management allocation in March 2021. The subdivision includes a variety of housing types open space shared recreation facilities multi-use path and trails and road connections to Mountain View Road and Raven Circle. This property is located in the residential zoning district. Tonight staff is recommending that the DRB take testimony and close, deliberate and approve the recommendation with a motion as drafted below. There's not a full list of recommendations because this approval only authorizes the applicant to participate in growth management. The recommendations about overall subdivision design were approved by the DRB at the original pre-app review in 2020. This is the first time the DRB is reviewing the request. This property has a lengthy permitting history that summarized in a prior staff report and most recently it went through growth management in March 2021 where it scored 67 points and was allocated to the DRB dwelling unit equivalents. The advisory boards and other departments were not required to comment on this application because this is just a request to participate in growth management. They're not commenting on any element of subdivision design at this point. There was one comment letter received at the time of mail out by John Hemmelgarn. That is included in your packet. And I did include some staff comment here. The site plan and the unit count that are shown are slightly different than what was presented during the original pre-app review and March 2021 growth management. The DRB will have an opportunity to review the road alignment and address the comments in Mr. Hemmelgarn's letter at discretionary permit. The first discretionary permit has not yet been filed but is anticipated in the coming months. Subdivision designs have changed between pre-application growth management and discretionary permit as the applicant studies land constraints and designs infrastructure and construction plans. It is not uncommon for unit count and road alignment to change. At discretionary permit, the DRB will make findings that the proposed layout and all its design elements uphold the growth management score and meet the other land development standards of the bylaws. If authorized tonight, the Catamount Golf Subdivision can participate in March 2022 growth management hearing. They're currently proposing 148 dwelling units as 130 dwelling unit equivalents. What follows is a summation of the affordable housing and the various levels of affordable housing that are proposed in the subdivision. This area is located outside the growth center in the sewer service area and subject to the criteria of 11.8. There are nine categories of criteria. What follows is some supplemental information about density and affordability and growth management allocation. In Williston, density and growth management are based on the dwelling unit equivalent, whereby a studio or one bedroom unit is half a dwelling unit equivalent or DUE. One bedroom unit or more bedrooms is one DUE. There are some implications this has on how the density is factored into the subdivision. Various levels of affordability are either shown on the growth management allocation table and then if it's less than 80% of the area median income at that affordability level, it's not on the table. There is a density bonus based on the provision of affordable housing. All this to say that the growth management questionnaire, the first discretionary permit and subsequent amendments must include a careful accounting of each unit, its bedroom count and affordability status to make sure the density bonus and allocation schedule for the overall subdivision is upheld. Staff will work with the applicant to make sure that they have the appropriate tracking mechanism. What follows is a bylaw excerpt about the requirement for growth management to go through pre-application in order to qualify and a motion for the DRB's consideration. Thank you. Your first. Well, I'm not sure how much we would like to add to that it's a pretty good summation of where we are tonight and where we have come from because Emily is pointing out the site plan that we're submitting now is slightly different from what the board has been in the past and Emily was sort of hinted at some of the reasons for that and really has to do with the weird process of preparing to submit an application for discretionary permit for a space project. Most likely you would see that sometime in the road department of 2022 and as part of the completion of the engineering studies that are necessary for that weapons analysis of road planning, et cetera as well as the changes of the plan needed to make to accommodate the requirements of the public works department in terms of the road, et cetera. So those things are incorporated into the plan that we submitted with this application. The unit count is slightly different and this is again due to some of the specific findings that we're learning about and doing the studies necessary to submit discretionary permit. But the project is by and large the same it has all levels of the same elements that we're receiving more and more from management. And as I said it's largely still the same project with a couple of changes. We do think some of the changes to the road design will result in a better project sort of a more natural flow to the street, especially the main street that's coming down out from down in Europe connected to the major part of the development. And as I said our intention for being here tonight is to meet the final requirement to participate in growth management I mean pre-application in order for us to participate in growth management is a place for 2022. Otherwise we have to answer any questions. Okay, thank you. And I realize that I have a lot of new problems to my apologies to the public area if it's on. Okay, at this point in time I'd like to turn it over to the DRB to ask any questions. Thank you. Okay, thank you. I'm going to go back to the board Scott they said Thank you. Yeah, I'm fine. Maybe we can do this again. Okay, thank you. Thank you. And I have a question. Oh, one point. Okay. I'm assuming that John's letter to the you know you know that's right. That's going to be introduced. That's okay. Yeah. Okay, members of the club are there any members of the club that would like to comment on this application? Looks like there's a raise to hand. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Arthur Hogwood, you can unmute yourself and speak. Please state your name and address for the record. We are at a letter and also Arthur Hogwood is the president of the HOA and we would like to express our concern about this topic and would like to ask the board and the title was to please lower the speed limit or put up some stop sign or apply it or something in order to control the flow. We are asking this because we have witnessed two cars off the road either at our town house development or very close by our town house development in the past six months. One amazing citizen actually heard within about a of our personal fence and so we are talking about 130 units that were probably talking about 250 cars and so this level traffic will be a significant concern with this narrow road unless we limit to about 30 miles an hour or at stop sign or at traffic light or something really whatever it had been done to control the traffic on this road is necessary thus far there has been development on this road without enough concern for the traffic that is happening. So we are wondering what the sewer capacity issue is at this point when we are trying to control the traffic on this road and so we are wondering what the sewer capacity issue is at this point when we are looking at developing an additional development. Okay, is that exactly the comment? It does. Thank you both speed limits and sewer allocation are out of the overview of the DRP just and FYI so this is not to to make that case but I appreciate your thoughtful comments. Do you have any guidance on where to direct those comments? Yes, I do. So the first one was about traffic and vehicle speeds so this project will be required to look at the traffic study at the discretionary permit phase of review. The traffic study will mainly look at if this subdivision will create traffic congestion at neighboring intersections it will probably look at what does that new intersection at Mountain View Road need to include. Does it need to be a stop sign, turn lanes, queuing lanes, that type of thing will be looked at. So the first one is about traffic and vehicle speeds on town roads. The select board does have a traffic calming policy. It steps out the various steps that citizens can take to make their comments known about traffic calming measures, vehicle speeds and what the process would be from the education end of the spectrum . Third, several years ago the select board did consider a study of the Mountain View Road corridor and considered a couple options including off road paths on the south side of Mountain Root View Road, the north side of Mountain View Road and the third option of just doing additional paving on the curb for on street bike lanes. So I'm excited on that third option. If you guys send me an email tomorrow I'm happy to send you links to that study about why the select board made that decision. And lastly about traffic, when you look at the regional traffic flows through the area, the traffic has increased on Mountain View Road over the years. However we see that increase continue onto North Williston Road as part of that regional traffic network of people commuting from the core of the mountain. So we see that in the south of the Mountain View Road, the city of Burlington County, Burlington, South Burlington, even Williston out towards Jericho, Essex, West Bolton, etc. You see that consistent number of vehicles from those various intersections all the way to River Road in Essex. And Matt can probably speak a little bit better to the sewer and then I think that the department of the mayor's department of the board's attachment a policy does set out the number of gallons per day that can be allocated to different uses industrial residential. I know there was a crunch in the residential category years ago. I just want to remind a little bit more about the roadway I don't think they have adequately considered the extent of the accidents and the extent of the worst beating on many folks. And I don't think that adequately addresses my concerns and the concerns of others in our H&M that the additional traffic is likely to be a problem. And that the impact of more cars and more potential speeders is going to be becoming a problem for this road. And additionally, I'm sure that the time on this list is why life is lost because of the narrowness of this road and the speed at which people are routinely driving. And also the speed at which people are going to be driving off the road. Again, I stress that we have had a report that has documented the car tracks that were within a foot of our professors. And it's a serious, serious issue. And so as we are talking about how this might impact development in this area, it is not completely divorced from the fact that the way that traffic is handled also affects development and development impacts traffic. And so while I know that you're trying to say that this should be handled by a federal warrant, it really is intertwined and these two issues have to be ignored. Okay, thank you. Emily, would you like to introduce Ian Campbell, please? Yes, Ian, you can go ahead and unmute yourself and please state your name and address for the record. Yes, I'm Ian Campbell, I'm a 17-year-old driver in the Red Renderers' Movement. I've been a homeowner here since October 25th, 2018. We also had a family who lives on the 2nd Road 574, a column of my ex-wife, and we shared that with our children. And I was here by force to be about the development or family on the old as a client's trip. So let me know when I can start writing my comments. I can't, okay, thank you. Yeah, thank you, Ian. Great, thank you. So I've provided two screenshots, and I apologize if I have any slides to make sure if they're essentially things that I put together as overlays and overlays of this information. The first person to which Emily has come up is essentially, and very much to scale, the green orange on the right-hand side of the right-hand side of the right-hand side, that we have essentially here a planned record from the U.R. Ex-Meminary Firmware over later on to existing properties that we have in this area. So basically my concern is I want to see the ability for people to move, be able to move into Williston and into our school district, come to the quality of my stuff and I can be promoted as much as possible. And I certainly see especially how property rights are going to be done, and I think that becomes essentially impossible that you probably have seen the news reports talking about most important places to live in Vermont, and South Brooklyn, and Essex, St. Helm, and so forth. They all appear in your talk. Williston is not there because we have a huge short-term bill on housing. And while I appreciate that, I also have to remember what Williston has done since the introduction of the ground water systems, which dates back to when I was in high school and the Chris Cider ones as well, at these planning stages. We need to be very careful about how we make it transition from urban district to rural district because this is Vermont and this is not New Jersey. This is not where basically we just assemble these things and assume that everything's going to work fine because by the side I would have a certain density population just here within a generation. If you just look at that road, again, the first road I'm going to talk about, which was where I saw some of the, St. Helm developed one of the plans to use this thing in boring properties. The sentence we have is twice the population density as we do with any of the joint areas. So this is what we're talking about. We're talking about the outer areas of Southridge. That is not a problem, but it presents itself with a question of why do we have this much density of current in this amount of land? With respect and give you respect to affordable housing and have that issue be in? Yes. Sir, I just wanted to, you know, in interest of mine, I want to, I air this slide and let people speak because I really tried to include some of the media here. But a couple of things, one is this is free. So, all we're doing tonight is advancing this, this is a concept so that we can participate in road management and range. And there's going to be much more email at the discretion of your program faces. So, that is where more everybody is talking and probably more appropriate from community. That's point number one. Point number two is that is the TRRE fundamentally just judges, projects for compliance to provide to provide a rule of law that the unified violence is the rule of law. And all we do is we judge compliance to the rule of law that is given to us by publics. And so, something like density is in the regulations and it's approved by, it's recommended by the land and it's been ratified by the select board. And we have no set over that, none on it. And so, it is, and I'm not trying to take the ball, but it is, but it's an interest and very thoughtful and well spoken and if you consider what I mean, and if you consider what I mean, and I appreciate that, but it's really nothing that we can influence. I fully appreciate that, Mr. Kellogg, but for the sake of having people be mindful as it progresses, even though we are not, not going to judge that out, but it's my change, we just had a big meeting of minds this past summer talking about how tax corners as a, as a, as an embodiment of a more urban center, of a greater population density center. Perhaps you need a good idea to focus on it because we want to have the rural character who wants to be presented to, to everyone as being some, that wills the students. If you would all just take the time to take a look at the two drawings I made, at least as part of the beginning as I was thinking about how tax money went forward. The central, the second slide is which we can look at at your own time. It is to scale the Snyder proposals for the SS Lyons Church property, the Senate, the Academy of Conference Club property, but also, very curiously, the proposals which is not going to address this will be an outcome of the Mucca Treaty Baptist Church development. You see, the section three of the most different ideas is what I was also alluding to was what I mentioned when we were meeting specifically about the Snyder and the development on the SS Lyons Church property. We're seeing, we're forgetting that the desire seems to be embodied in what the University of Haiti and at least the ideas about tax funds and wills the greater support to come together that we should not see an increase in population density as the only way for that kind of support. And to be perfectly honest, I see Trinity and their proposals following that one because it looks very much similar to properties in that area. Whereas for this particular development we've always presented other places like Fick's Edge where we have high density, low-potential for all, but high density for Univaker being entirely a character within the rest of the joining characteristics. I wish that land available, Haiti developed would occur and many people wanted to, but to be perfectly honest, that kind of density that I'm seeing in both, but I spoke about before with the Snyder as well the sense that although that seems to be more appropriate to what we should be seeing in these past corners in the general area, not in these outbound areas. And again, I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to be an obstacle to be able to have more property and more green spaces around them as a house that's not that affordable, but for the sake of affordable housing we're creating a greater density structure and we're getting, you know, that's being allowed. But is this everything around here? Ian? Ian, I respectfully ask that you wrap this up, please, because you've continued on as I said I ask you not to do so. Very welcome. I think I've said all that I meant to, and as long as the notes were taken down and the slides weren't the record, I had the chance to be able to talk about these details again, but I want you all to take my mind off this. I've been a moderate since 1977, I'm two years old, and I'm seeing this as the beginning of things that I don't think are appropriate as far as development density being away from urban. Thank you. Thank you. Are there other rates in this, Emily? Yes, Arthur Hoggard. Hi, Gary. I wanted to ask just for a point of clarity here. So what is the next step after this discussion of this particular perverse group review? What is the next level or will we be considering processes? Yeah, so in March this project will go to the DRB where the DRB will compare the subdivision to the criteria of chapter 11, give the project a score and an allocation schedule. Then it can proceed from growth management to discretionary permit because they already got growth management allocation earlier this year in March, 2021. They're authorized to proceed to discretionary permit at any time. So it's TBD if they'll file that before growth management in 2022 or after, and that discretionary permit is complete site plan review where we compare all elements of the subdivision design to the criteria of the bylaw. Does the density comply with the density standards of the bylaw, the wetlands analysis, et cetera? And after discretionary permit, it can do its final plans and permitting to start phases of construction on infrastructure and houses. And I don't want to be stifling this and not know that next meeting are we going to have court boarders comment and the public should stop talking. Is it just in the end, it's up to them to say that I don't understand the appropriate reasons and then come out and sort of the objective of the public about being told that we're going to use it about I don't think we're going to sludge it a bit. Doctor, I never said that the input wasn't valid. I was trying to say that it didn't matter. We're trying to have the control. And so, this is- Does that matter of your interpretation, you guys, as you see the bylaw, or as we're talking about the bylaw, just to be clear and say that you're bound? There's no such thing as a rule that doesn't have room for interpretation. So, you know, whenever you guys respond while you are interpreting and doing it in a way that you guys think right, right, that's not the main reason. You just need to get a few points. Okay, any other people with raised hands? Are you seeing any animal in there? I'm no raised hands. Ian Comet just sent me a message in the chat to make his PNG files public. We will add those images that were shared tonight a part of the minute's record. And it looks like Kevin Mazzuzin has a question. Kevin, go ahead and unmute yourself. Okay, can you hear me? Yes. Great, thank you. Kevin Mazzuzin, 11, 21, I'm here to listen. I've got a question for the applicant. In growth management, do you receive zero points from a conservative? Are you planning on applying the conservative component to the project moving forward? So, the scoring in growth management, you should probably read through what the scoring criteria is in growth management. We get our best to try to score as high as we could in growth management, looking at all the various incentives that are available in the bio world. But what I'm going to tell you is the bar to score points under that criteria is extremely high. I understand that. So, at this point, I'm not sure that we'll be able to make adjustments to the project that would result in us getting a different score. And what I would also say in that regard, this is meaning that we don't have any consideration for energy issues. All the events are going to be instructed in the fact that it's going to mean the state energy issues you require. Need to exceed those requirements, but the count criteria of energy efficiency goes way beyond that. So, that's where we are going. Okay, I'm very familiar with Biola. Having received allocation of a point in growth management for my current project, I've been into the town, I've been into my project of meeting that criteria. And I would suggest that this project is considered looking at that again, because it is a priority for the town as well as an opportunity for this project to set the agenda. Okay, I think I'm done. Yep. Are there any other raised hands for me? No more raised hands, no more comments in the chat. I will add one staff comment that anyone is welcome to reach out to planning staff by phone or email. We are open in person as well. We're happy to dig into the Biola with people, explain Melissa's planning history and provide a deeper context than what can be provided in a DRB meeting. Mr. Hogg did mention the subjectivity of some of the development review. And I would say that growth management criteria are probably some of the most subjective requirements in the Biola. So we're happy to help applicants understand that review process and what happens at growth management in March. And do encourage people to reach out to me or Matt and pick our brains. We'd like answering questions about the Biola. Thank you. And in the end of the day, we would like to have some discussion about the background session and how that should be. Sounds good. Okay, members of the DRB, any final questions? I'm gonna do it. I'm on the left side. Okay, last call. Fine. Can and or Orissa's last comments? I don't have any comments. Okay, we're gonna run closed, DBB1D-ED, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you. Okay, that's done. It is DBB0-0-1.23, this is a discretionary requirement. DBB for building H in Berber, Mark, and thinking from the same area of town, staff members Berber. Oh, okay. DBB1D-ED, thank you, thank you. Right, thank you, thank you, thank you. And Mr. Hamelhar, your back, can I get this one? I'm on the back, I'm on the side. Okay, thank you. Staff members. All right, this is a request for discretionary permit to construct building H, a single story restaurant, 4,300 square feet in size, and the Finney Crossing Urban Park with parking, sidewalks, and related appurtenances. This property is currently vacant. It's 0.85 acres in size, the current use is vacant. They're proposing a commercial use in a park. It has access on town and private roads. It's located in the Tap Corner Zoning District where it is subject to design review, but not conservation commission review. Tonight, we're recommending that the DRB take testimony and close, deliberate, and make a decision. We're recommending approval, but only if the DRB carefully considers the findings, conclusions, and conditions drafted for the Urban Park and Growth Management Score. If the DRB would like additional design elements added to the Urban Park or other parks in Finney Crossing, then the hearing should be continued so the applicant can provide more information and site plans. This is the first time the DRB is reviewing this discretionary permit for building H in the Urban Park. Finney Crossing has a lengthy permitting history that began in 2003 prior to the current bylaws and includes several amendments as each phase moved from sketch plan to reality. I have excerpted some important dates as they pertain to this review. So in 2007 was Finney Crossing's original approval with a 2005 site plan. This was a site plan that included more greens and commons in the commercial side of the development as well, including an amphitheater. And the vesting of the project under this approval was under the pre-2009 zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations when zoning and subdivision were separate. And that was lost when a portion of the growth management allocation had expired. So fast forward to 2011. That's when the overall project was approved under the current number DP0901 under the current development bylaws. And that 2011 site plan scaled back that 2005 amphitheater to a green but still retained a central common and a secondary green. To 2017 was the last time that Finney Crossing went through growth management review. This was to adjust the allocation schedule for the fiscal years that the units were allocated in. At that time, it scored 67 points, including full points for the neighborhood space criterion. Later on in 2017, November, 2017, there was a discretionary permit approved for the hotel and reconfiguring the street layout. At this time, the urban park was reduced from one and a half acres to a third of an acre and other park spaces were eliminated or modified. The pre-application review for building H and the urban park took place in July of 2021. Advisory boards and interdepartmental review, the historic and architectural advisory committee reviewed this application, their conditions are included, public works and fire also reviewed the application and their memos are included as well. One comment letter was received at the time of mail out from Brian Forrest. What follows is a summation of the DRB's pre-application recommendations and how the applicant responded. Primarily, some statements about the urban park via the hack recommendations some standards about how the restaurant will operate in terms of air quality, hours of operation, noise and screening, maintenance. There was a hack recommendation about the screening of mechanical equipment on the roof that it be screened with the parapet. The original renderings provided with the application showed a fence around the mechanical equipment that would be visible from the road. This was modified by lowering the roof deck, which lowers the interior ceiling height, shifting the mechanical equipment and confirming the design specs of the mechanical to ensure that it would be screened by the parapet. The hack had some very specific pre-app recommendations that the DRB approved about the design of the urban park and these have been addressed and will be discussed later on. Primarily about the type of seating, the type of space for people to gather. There was also a shared parking study submitted as well as a comparison of the vehicle trips to Zephyr Road submitted. This property is located in the Taft Corner Zoning District where restaurant and drinking place isn't allowed use. The project complies with the dimensional standards in terms of the building being pulled to the street. There's no minimum lot size here and the building is below the 36 foot height limit. Outdoor sales and storage, there's not outdoor sales or storage proposed nor is it allowed here. They are proposing a lean to like addition on the west side of the building. It will be screened for mechanical delivery area storage for the restaurant use. This zoning district does have specific development standards for the building. It's brought up to the street and the building massing and materials generally comply with those standards. Taft Corners also has the five of nine design elements where new development must meet five of the elements cumulatively across the development proposal. This includes multiple uses, lodging including residential, multiple stories, wide sidewalks and an urban park. For multiple stories, we did ask the applicant to provide an analysis for all buildings within Finney Crossing. They are well above the 60% minimum at 92% and are anticipated to be at 98% if that future senior living building is constructed. The DRB should discuss the urban park and the quality and quantity of park space within Finney Crossing. The five of nine criteria primarily focuses on that the urban park be visible and accessible to the public so that it complements other proposed uses. For example, a picnic table for employee lunch breaks is not an urban park. Growth management. The DRB must decide if the urban park upholds the growth management score of 67 points and full points for neighborhood space. The DRB should also review all neighborhood space in Finney Crossing for compliance. If the parks do not uphold the score, then the DRB and applicant should discuss remedies such as enhanced programming of existing park space with the residential and commercial areas of Finney Crossing. Growth management scores rarely come up in the review of commercial site development. However, in this case, the urban park is an element of Finney Crossing's overall neighborhood space. Staff has analyzed the permitting history and the evolution of neighborhood space as each phase builds out. A detailed analysis with site plans is attached. In summary, the number of parks and greens was reduced and the overall land area reduced and the programming simplified were not fulfilled. For example, the central green was gonna be about one and a half acres and include criss-crossing sidewalks. Now it's proposed to be the urban park today, a third of an acre. There was, in March 2017, the last time it was at growth management, another green shown where the healthy living building is currently today and that stormwater basin. I think that was gonna be about 1.4 acres. There was also another green that was formerly the amphitheater. And within the residential component of the building, things like the community buildings and pools and tennis court built out, but there are two playgrounds that have not been constructed to date and there were some additional walking paths proposed near one of the pools and tennis courts that have also not been constructed. Overall, Finney-Crossing is a 105 acre development with 587 dwelling units, approximately 225,000 square feet of commercial space, including the anticipated senior living facility and 46.2 acres of open spaces, which includes everything from the Allenbrook Conservation Area and buffer north of the residential development to the commercial building stormwater ponds. It was awarded full points for neighborhood space with the expectation that the residential parks would be completed with play areas and walking paths and the commercial area would be built out with three park spaces totaling approximately 2.5 to 3.5 acres. Since then, the park has been reduced to one acre. The third of an acre publicly accessible urban park next to building H and a two-third acre park is anticipated with the senior living facility. So the DRB should consider, does the proposed park uphold the DRB's expectation for full points in neighborhood space, if not what programming elements can be added to this park or throughout Finney-Crossing to uphold the score and if the growth management score is upheld, if those two play areas and sidewalks through the neighborhood green are not constructed. What follows is some photos showing visuals of how the park space has evolved from growth management in 2017 to today and excerpts from growth management criteria for neighborhood space. Full points, the developed neighborhood space is easily accessible and useful to its inhabitants. One to 10 points, depending on the size, diversity of functions and other characteristics of the space provided. In terms of access connectivity and traffic studies, complies as proposed. It has curb cuts onto Curtis Lane and Holland Lane and the pedestrian and cyclist access is provided by sidewalks in the Curtis Lane multi-use path. Infrastructure, a standard decision is proposed. There's properties served by municipal water and sewer. Utility connections are underground. And there is some statement in the bylaw about how the right required improvements will be guaranteed and maintained. Off-street parking and loading, we are proposing a specific condition. The vehicular parking complies as proposed. There is a shared parking analysis. There is surface parking available as well as on-street parking and the adjacent apartment building, building A2, does have underground parking. The parking study analyzed the various hours of peak demand and determined that the maximum number of spaces needed is 241 around 6 p.m. And overall this complies as proposed with our vehicular parking standards. Both ADA parking and bicycle parking in the table below are based on a quality restaurant as if it had its own standalone parking lot. A restaurant alone would require 86 vehicular parking spaces. They're proposing four ADA spaces adjacent to building H's entrance. The bicycle parking can comply with conditions. There are six bicycle racks equivalent to 12 spaces provided in the northeast corner of the urban park where the racks would be visible and accessible to both the park and the restaurant. The DRB should discuss if the number and location of the racks are sufficient and if not, condition number 11 must be modified. Final plans must also include two long-term spaces and demonstrate that building H employees will have access to the shared end-of-trip facilities in building E and to trip facilities being a shower and a locker room. Maintenance, we're recommending a specific decision and the DRB may choose to add a new condition. Their litter management by providing trash cans on the sidewalks complies as proposed. Their snow storage and removal plan also complies. In terms of solid waste, the DRB must decide if the enclosure location in screening complies as proposed. They are proposing it in the parking lot as opposed to combined within the building. And it's designed to line up with the parking drive aisle for vehicular access for the dump truck. The DRB should decide if that location is acceptable or if it should be shifted closer towards the building. Compatibility, potential hazards and nuisances. So the DRB here may also choose to add a new condition and decide if it complies. The DRB has the authority to review smoke and odor air quality standards, hours of operation and screening, especially the screening of mechanical equipment. The other standards of this chapter are not applicable because this is a light commercial use as a restaurant whereas some of those standards are geared towards heavy industrial uses. Air quality complies as proposed. The vents will be through the roof so that odors will be away from the paved path in the park. The DRB could limit hours of operation with a new condition. The applicant does state that the restaurant will not open till 11.30 AM allowing for morning deliveries and deliveries will be prior to opening using the parking area and service area. Trash pickup also in the morning hours. For screening, this complies as proposed because the applicant revised the roof-mounted mechanical screening plan and they do have the backyard area that enclosed lean to for utility meters and mechanical equipment and restaurant supplies. Design review, there is a specific condition including the hack recommendations from their review on November 2nd. The hack found that the building architectural design and materials comply as proposed and they primarily focused on the landscaping and programming of the urban park under the requirements of chapter 22 and 41. The applicant's original submission did not respond to the pre-applic recommendations, particularly, quote, comfortable places to sit, benches with backs, tables, dry lawns, areas for children to play, et cetera. The applicant submitted revised landscape plans, elevations, and a narrative. Primarily granite seating blocks were replaced with more benches and picnic tables and they added some concrete spheres as an artistic play element as well as a sloped stone feature where people can informally sit or gather if they're meeting up with a friend, that kind of thing. The hack did at their review request additional benches and another picnic table. So this area on the northeast corner of the park, moving some of those concrete play spheres into the lawn area providing another picnic table and providing additional benches along the walkway for seating. Landscaping street trees, this complies as proposed with a condition. They are providing street trees in compliance with the type three or four buffer and there are existing street trees and new ones are being proposed and there is additional screening between the pedestrian path and the building as well along the hotel side of the building. Signs and public art, no master sign plan is required and no public art is proposed. And in terms of impact fees, they're normally assessed when an administrative permit is filed. The applicant did provide an analysis of their transportation impact fees where the cost of constructing Zephyr Road, I believe is a million dollars more than what they would have had to pay for impact fees. So adding more vehicle trips with the restaurant, they are still well below their cost of constructing Zephyr Road and will not be liable for transportation impact fees. Outdoor lighting, this also complies with conditions. Overall, the lighting plan complies. The final plan should include some notes about light timing. An urban park is considered publicly accessible and open 24 seven and should have some level of illumination throughout the night, but not full illumination. Whereas the restaurant lighting should be dimmed after close of business. And these lighting standards can be addressed at final plans. What follows are some specific findings of fact and conclusions of law with some decisions for the DRB around the urban park, as well as the list of conditions of approval. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Mike. I failed to ask who would represent the applicant for employee letters, doc notes. Who is here? Who is here? Chris Snyder, would you present? Yes. Could you be present? Who else would be? Andy Bravo. I think Chris would state your name and address your record please. Yep, Chris Snyder with Snyder Rolls and Snyder F.C. Commercial Properties and our address is 4076 Shelby Road, 26 Shelby. Thank you. Andy. Andy, we'll remember on the consent of 14 more strategists. Okay. Chris and Andy, you're next. I'd like to hear your detail about some of the things the points raised by the points that have been raised. Absolutely. First of all, thank you again for taking the time to review our proposal for the relief of the urban park. You know, this is another important point that we'll have to be overall developed. Can you cross see it in the reality that this portion was approved in the park area was approved basically when the hotel was being permitted back in 2017. So a lot of the changes from that moment were the extension of the relief at that time and the rest, we think that is actually a relief at the time but we've really been speaking to some of those things a little bit further. As I've noted, you know, since our pre-optimation on most property in that specific product building in the park, we think we're going to decide and develop a plan to reflect comments and concerns brought up by the DRD in the hack and staff, we feel that we have proved the overall layout of the park and maybe more attractive and then the type of location and the useful park space than what was previously designed and building nature's, you know, focus and views out of this park area. And again, it's another important backstop and viewpoint when we went through to the big crossing on the hall of the lake. So in terms of the park space, you know, I would say that this park has become a gathering spot and it is smaller than designed in 2011 and if what we have sent in 2011 in the last series is that smaller areas actually work better and that they're actually more usable, prettier and amazing to go to. And so what we have done with the park is really on the usability of this park and the type of job and then thinking about where it's located, it's directly adjacent to a hotel along it will be a little out of town. Just out of the restaurant, had a little restaurant and then it also had a commercial building with a living in it and also with an LLV sort of kiddie corner product. So PV, this park will be used and it will be used by a lot of people and a lot of liquid waste and we're excited to see that it be used in that fashion. That will be a private park, it's not a public park, but it is private and we are planning to have maintaining here on the way that we're here for the other product we've been in, any process. We see what else is about, I think that's kind of, the focus is really been on power improvement over the last couple of months and the field that we're having and a lot of the things that everybody brought up to see about usability and creating this space with Google don't do. There are other areas that I've noted with regards to building each and we did express all the mechanical concerns, questions about that and things about locations that I'm going to note about the shielding of the mechanical group will not be visible from the streets without any, without any specific weeks around it and we wouldn't be able to be a parent with a problem on the building edge. There are a couple of other questions and concerns that were brought up from the track, should be noted that typically the fire department and Vermont Department of Fire and Public Safety wants to see track buildings or closures or third party from the building and that we have located actually in an area that's accessible for the products to actually get to and then we have located closures that will be it would be extremely difficult for it to be McDonald. The other concern about the crash building will be closer to the building edge that an attention would be creating now will be able to be the access point in the delivery area there. But those are sort of the big items and there are some little details that we certainly can walk through through the staff notes and certainly anything else that we can add to about any of the other staff comments. Just a couple of minor items that the staff and long-term bike spaces can be accommodated in the back yard area and the enclosure on the west end of the building and inter-facilities will be shared with the remaining restaurant employees and certainly we can include notes on the lighting plan that are dirty in the blights. The lights on the building would be subject to a lot of damage. Yes, we put a little bit of input work for the DRB. There's three bikes. The parking area. The OSHA goes all the way to the end. Fifty percent. You know, leave one on, shut two off, leave two on, shut one off. I guess whatever the DRB's preference is there, we have to accommodate but we'd like some guidance there as opposed to just pinning them all 75 percent. I thought about that. I think we discovered the details related to building each. One thing I could also further add is one of the things that during the bridge and the path that they cross there are other spaces that have been added. Other parking areas that are necessarily refining parking areas. There is a larger area of parking building number four. There are smaller spaces along Holland Lane where there is parking in seconds. That's all set up and organized. There are also there's a large open space with pool and tennis courts at the homeowner's use. There's a large pool in the open space area for the apartment building so I think over time it may seem like certain part-time pieces have been monocled but the reality is you probably also have many places in other areas that have just done differently. Maybe none of them are fine but maybe you should have that as a presentation but I think if you look at the overall product you would find and if you walk on the overall product you would find that there are spaces for residents throughout the day. Okay, thank you Chris. Yes. I just have one question probably for staff around the definition of the day of the apartment because one thing they might have bothered is the storm water model in the last slide. In the apartment C exactly that question was worth it. Yeah, I noticed that too so in the applicant set of materials they did provide a list of an analysis of storm water ponds as neighborhood parks. I probably wouldn't count that as an urban park either unlike the integral part of town there isn't a quantitative open space requirement in the growth center but I did note that in the analysis provided as well. Thank you. No changes. John, I have an order. This is a good one. Let me start with the dumpster enclosure. I think it's a perfectly good spot with that. Further away from the building provides nicer places to park closer to the building one thing. The concern I have is it looks like the back of that enclosure is right up against the kind of the walk right above the hotel and I'm just wondering what kind of screening is involved there. Someone who is walking through the neighborhood with an announcement that the best pack of hotel is not having a negative pack of a dumpster building right there. I would say that John, I'm going to change that comment if you look at the proposed administration to do a message along the first lane by path. No, I'm pretty pretty concerned about that. Experienced here in the neighborhood. So I think that needs a little bit of an engineer. I know there's a landscape in the plan area. So if you move to the other end of this walkway it's interesting what I don't see here is a great connection between kind of the outdoor spaces there on the side of the hotel. I think there's a little fire up there and whatnot. I understand probably the use of a hotel but certainly it's something that one outdoor space would be connected to the outdoors. I'm not perfectly clear on how those are connected here. You've also got the outdoor terrace area of the restaurant and again I apologize I'm not getting the picture of what that looks like right there. You've got a sidewalk a planted bed and I don't know what the elevation of that seating area is in relation to the side of the wall. So basically the same elevation the sidewalk kindness and the patio area what there would be is a planting bed and also a fence. It will be required there will be an alcohol server in that location. So it will only be I think it would be a 42 inch fence. So it's not a little bit of lack of a little fence in these type of areas. And there is a connection over to the hotel where you see that 22HT that was just on the screen there a second ago you know it will be connected to the bike path that is basically adjacent to and connected to the hotel lobby. They may have a couple of steps in the house how do you go to that path to the bike path. I can't remember exactly how they connected it but it is connected to someone and maybe you can remember that area. Yes so the east west there is a little spur segment of sidewalk and it's east west that aligns with the canopy you know from a secondary entrance from the hotel with the outdoor parking pit to the cell and then they have there is a small space area between the building and the path and then the hotel actually has a small space area with the outdoor parking area to the north so that is sort of private the outdoor fireplace to the cell kind of the land has much more of a path but that east west sidewalk segment aligns with there being an area to the building. And what is in that little triangle space between the curb sidewalk and the path of the bike path. That's the way in which the slight boundary comes up a couple of feet here with the so it is to try to separate the outdoor area of the hotel from this park totally separate entities that are trying to melt them and make them kind of part of a single experience. Well you know that's a good question the hotel area where the people in the hotel not for the general public to go where our park is open to the general public and so what we have said today what we want to do is encourage people from the hotel to utilize this space as well in coming to the general public so I think the idea is to separate the community to a certain extent apart from the hotel private spaces but get the courage in the hotel space to come in into the public areas. Yeah It's a hard question you know the typical one I'm sure you quite got it let me out on the other hand the deck for the restaurant is absolutely being encouraged by the people using the restaurant to be an active participant in the park as opposed to the hotel so you're kind of asking two different things in very close proximity one another but this all really gets down to the real question we have going here which is who's using this park why are they there and what do they think they want to get there and it turns out they didn't have that and I have to say if you want to remember to win I was not to have this PR remember about that change the this is a small park and I appreciate what you were saying about that sometimes parks are too big maybe have a more dynamic space is a smaller one that's perfectly true but I walk there it's half noon and it doesn't look very big before going to the restaurant and that restaurant's going to take up both sides and you know the roads right there they tend to try to separate that a little bit it's extremely flat right now except for the area that's kind of wet it's now lower on the sidewalk it's really hard for me to think that this is an equivalent park to what that very large both sides I mean the retirement home might be in the original drawings and it certainly would have allowed you to do two or three of the parks that you have here that you could have separated in separate areas focused on dog walkers dog exercises small kids for older people I don't know who's using this park and what I don't want to do is end up in that total space in the middle that nobody uses and it's just used to be able to kind of it's an open space nobody wants to go on there's no real purpose to it and so I guess that's my question who's going to be using this park how are they going to get there and what are they going to get there and who's using this park are people who come to any of the first establishments that are located on the property that's one group another group is going to be hotels other people that will use it are the ones who are currently residing of the residences there are others who can see some of the bikes and the walkways and then set up all the commercial areas and so I think who's going to be using this is people who live in the neighborhood I think if you come to the neighborhood to go to to go you know go play boulders or the little climbing feature or look at sit out on the on the and so I think you'll find what we tried to do was create scenic areas have benches have some tables have some open space and also creating some areas within that you know by you know whoever is coming to the property but also by a lot of people who already did I I just think about other areas and frequently they don't have any open space in the middle usually there's some focal point somewhere let's go down to the fountain or you know the memorial or whatever there's places for lots of people to sit you've got your benches you're right next to another bench and some other people who are sitting there and you don't mind being close nobody listens to each other's conversations but you're not usually all kind of sitting around with a big open space in the middle and it's very common but also complaining potentially about how small this space is all together and I'm just not sure this is doing enough for me to want to approve it as it is I think that given the fact that you distilled a very large area and you were small that I think we need to have a more concentrated set of activities that are being promoted here rather than just to take a big open space and people who kind of sit around on the edge of it that's my concern here it's a very small space and for it to have been advertised at the beginning as it's a very grand space the central element has coming out of the multiple directions to that central space that they probably had in other areas besides this local space it's a subset of I need to be convinced this is actually a really big cool place that's going to do everything that the other one is going to do that this project is sold well let me go back to one thing that to bring up I don't like to be the primary reason why these changes have been made have been to not recreate something that was created in the town and at the time in 2011 was thought to be the approach that was appropriate and that's the local space that was made across the street and that square box the center has not provided the usability because of the way that people around it have heard lots of comments about that back a number of years ago we were finding this that is for our perspective five years ago we started looking at how the overall property one of the challenges was the parkour so what we did is not only set aside this much better parkour this is an expensive parkour this is not it's not just a wide open space it's some grass down this is built out of design created with what I would say are pieces that people will utilize for cool and interesting but not only do we have edit but we have other spaces along the hallway if you go to the door there is one of the things we changed we eliminated Curtis Rowe there was some Rowe where the bike had that one was Rowe and we eliminated an essential Rowe Curtis late and he basically made it a bike path so that it was more pedestrian oriented to get people who lived in the neighborhood and who are going to be in the parkour to move through there in a pedestrian fashion so I think those are some of the things substantial changes that they and this is a modification that I'm going to show you right now this area of that was a fruit what year was that do you know 2017 November 2017 so what we did in 2017 so five years ago we were not able to go in this direction and what we've done is we've augmented what was shown as just the green open space to more of an activated space to the current land which has walkways and other and so I feel like we've actually gone going a lot better than what was originally approved in 2017 so I think you should be looking at that and saying hey, where did we start out in 2017 not where we started out in 2011 you know that's a ten plus years ago and that in 2017 we all we did the DRM into them where we were headed was the right direction what we've done since then is even to improve anything more and so I think that's where you know I think common with the DRM and many members say hey, this is hard is it better than what we were proposing in 2017 we no, not to me it's not but you take that plan and what you just had up there and one of the positive things I thought about was that it had the overall park area smaller because of the relocation of Holland Lane there was this one there was another little park down there on the lower right which kind of allowed the pedestrian experience here to kind of wander from one and there's a spot here or what's up there you kind of wander through the space you go from one of these little green spaces that have been developed there potentially and that one disappeared as far as I can tell I know it's currently there in place now just exactly like you've shown it yeah it's not noteworthy as you walk through there so I can tell you you spent some money on it are there benches there and trees and pavement markings I mean little sidewalk at the corner is is there it's there right it's right adjacent to the driveway going into apartment building A3 and it is framed on the west side by a few I think there's three or four birch trees there and there's a round seating wall there's a little curve path right there right there where the cursor is there's also another seating area to the there's another one now on this hotel where building F is shown it doesn't show up because of the access road but there's going to be parts and pieces of it that are retained there is just to the left Emily yeah there's that park area is currently constructed well I have to say I walk through there and it doesn't feel like a little enclosed spot that you want to stop and kind of sit and relax out of the hustle and the bustle of the traffic that's going through there and whatnot so which is what I think that the park that you're showing now is intended to be the new park is as designed in front of this open space park is much larger than that and much more I would say intriguing and interesting for people to want to go go I would agree and I think that it would be even more intriguing and interesting if there were more features to it and that it was a place where you could go with your kids who are just excited because they finished looking at this and then they go on and they look a little further and there's something else that's interesting like the little boulder walls or the little town I mean the spheres and the boulder walls and the seating areas and the benches they're all around the edge and I would say they're on the well but they are on the edge and we also want to provide some open space so that somebody can throw a frisbee in there too are people really going to throw frisbees here when you're that close to the street I think it's too small to throw frisbees in I think it's too small to throw balls for your dog to go fetch I think it's too small for that that's my that's my fear here I'm just not convinced Chris that you provided something that's equivalent to what you got points for at the beginning and I don't see how this has been made that much better to make up for that because I mean in reality we wanted this but we wanted more of it and we were promised more of it and we have more John though we don't have more Chris we don't have more this is a very small spot and you know initially this park was right at the end of that entrance drive it was a focal spot it was a place that you could see from route 2 it was a place that was going to try to draw people into this development and now it's a little out unless they come here it's nothing that's going to say we're going to go to this place because it's a really cool I mean if there was a fountain or a water park or a little water splice zone there you'd have people going there all the time but instead once they've been on the boulder walls for a couple of times it'll be fun to take your 5 year old or your 3 year old down there and let it climb around but this is not this is not the focal point that was I feel was promised here to begin with I'm sorry that you feel that we haven't met your promises but I think since 2017 we've been following through on what we've committed and what I would tell you is that we've worked very hard adding the features and parts pieces and working with people who design these parks in these spaces to ensure that we are following through on our promises because that's one of the things John if so many questions me about that I do stand tall on is you know if you ask me to perform and complete something and I agree to it I fall through on it and what I'm saying is hey we in 2017 had lots of discussion about fallen lane and the access and roads I understand your perspective was not loving this plan but I would tell you it did get approved and so here we are today five years later and we are sticking to our guns in providing what you what we promise and accentuated it more and you know I don't think we're getting credit in what I was talking about earlier I don't think we're getting credit for all the other open spaces that are around the overall neighborhood that aren't defined as parks that people are using them as parks people are using them as heating areas that is one of the things that we probably as I noted before aren't getting credit for either so I think you know if we went back and re looked at things you know we have a lot of open space on this overall property more than what we originally maybe not more but we have really good defined spaces for people to use and you know I do think that we I will stand my ground on hey I feel like we're you know providing what we promised you and I may have a different opinion on what that promise was but I feel like since 2017 we've improved this area we've made it better and we feel I feel like we've done a better job of designing and planning for this park I hear what you're saying and I appreciate your perspective I just I'm just not sold on it I don't understand who's using this open space in the middle and that it's kind of it's neither you know it's not this or that it's kind of nothing you know this wants to be either a densely developed activity space or it wants to be kind of a grand open area that you know but I I fear that you've just taken this space on this park and made it into something that nobody's going to be using it's the space in the middle that has no purpose and it could be other things why not contour that land more why not make it into more of a of a play area again that's why I asked to begin with who's using this I don't think it's I think it's nice to have some things around the edges to kind of watch what's happening in there but there's nothing happening in the middle there's nothing happening as a focus and you know if you told me this was a sloped lawn and there's a stage area there and there's going to be you know shows and whatnot maybe I could see that you know that actually then starts to explain the curved walk at the back but I haven't heard that and frankly it seems a little close to the road to busy streets to be doing that so I'm just disappointed that there's not more to this than there is this seems like the big part kind of just shrunk and not done differently because it's a different size it's a different location it's a different relationship to the street and whatnot so um I'm going to stop right there I guess my opinion is different from yours okay I'd like to hear from Dave Turner I somewhat agree with John I don't feel it's going to be the destination park now I mean it does have an open space so but I don't think the utilization is going to be what we were thinking it was going to be I feel that it may draw some people from the restaurant to go in there and see and stuff like that it will it will get used but it's not as appealing as it was before when it was a little bigger with other enemies but I think I think it will serve as a park yes Paul do you have anything to add well I vaguely remember I thought that we had this big discussion about potentially having to fence this part of the park off because the original plan was the restaurant was going to have outdoor activity in that park am I mistaken Chris there was a the previous proposal was for a fiddlehead brewery and they were potentially going to use it for some outdoor events um I remember because of that they were going to have require fencing around the space um and because the restaurants is going to be fenced along the seating area that's not required in this scenario also they're not they're not they're not going to emphasize any brewery in this restaurant now no no this is the restaurant with the bar okay yes I want to make sure so in other words that original plan is now gone the outdoor the outdoor activity uh the it was the brewery who was going to be providing those events yes okay and I'm pretty much uh kind of just assuming it's going to be a piece of land that people may or may not use but that's that's you know I can't predict what people are going to use nobody really can this may suddenly be the most popular place in the world for people to suddenly be sitting there after they're eating I don't know we'll we'll see in the future I guess okay members of the audience is there anyone who would like to make comments or press the raise hand button on the toolbar the only thing I have is um Ian Campbell sent me a lengthy direct message um he said he didn't have questions about the finny crossing agenda but sent some comments about the traffic on zephyr roads still water lane lane area but he's no longer in the meeting tonight he left okay yeah no public comment oh wait um Matthew Spitznagle said I agree with John a park with a purpose is more important to me uh Matthew if you'd like to speak you're welcome to unmute and state your name and address for the record think Matthew just commented in the chat okay okay okay okay okay um okay um um um um um um um um agreed um um um um okay um um um um um I didn't know the only space in general, I think, I don't know, it's just me and I don't know, my side side might be able to believe there are bots on the other areas and the other areas. We have members who have thought of a behavior or not. Dave, your suggestion is that we take a sitemap. Yes, that's what I meant. Just so we can, you know, I'd like to say something a little bit, but I would like this to be a little bit more formal. There's many crossing characters for many areas. So we can get a better feel for them. It's not random, it's going to be something. What's your suggestion? I'm heading on the length of time that we have, if we close, we have 45 days. Yes, when you close a hearing, you have 45 days to issue a decision. If you would like to continue the hearing for a site visit, we would have to warn the site visit as a public hearing. And Pete, you were asking whether we should close the hearing or continue in with the option I think that's been put out there. If we continue in with the additional, we would ask for additional design of the park? Or is it just something that we're going to discuss with conditions and voted on up or down tonight? Well, if we continue in, we're going to vote on that. Understood. But I'm not sure what we're continuing in. We're conscious. Yeah. I'm actually trying my closing in. I think they're not getting enough information from them. So if I don't know what the process is, because of my lack of action in the area, I think we have the proper way forward. Okay. Thank you, John. So John, I'm just providing an opportunity to provide feedback. I was providing continuance as an option that was not necessarily right. I understand. So I'm trying to imagine a path through where the continuance actually leads us all to a place where we can all be happy with the outcome. And again, I don't really understand yet the, if we continue in, what would we get? So we would be asking for a revised plan as part of the continuance. That would be an option. Yeah, it would be an option. Can I ask for... We spent a lot of time on this plan. With a partner. We went with twice. We made this deal a lot of time to include their comments. We had a sense of discipline into this forward reality. Which looks different, but not exactly different. But what is it that you think is going to make this draft plan in line with what you've got here? Chris, that's what I'm interested in. And again, I don't like designing the DRGC. So I don't know the answer to the question. All I know is that at some point we're going to have to deliberate amongst ourselves to decide the question staff have raised in front of us. Which is whether this meets the criteria of the fly by line. Whether it satisfies what's been applied for and improved in the past. I guess we should just close this hearing and we'll have that debate amongst ourselves. Can you... I have to ask this question. Because I think it's coming... I have to say that I've been surprised by the approach of a critical back. Why would be held the put on promises made in these previous applications? I'm not saying that I'm not following the put on promises. I guess I would have thought that those discussions would have happened in 2017 when there were visits made. But we didn't have a specific part in front of us to review. We've been told repeatedly those things would be coming out of the description. But you didn't have a specific area. But again, if you would agree right now that if this were a flat on, you would agree. If it was just the one that's out there right now. We were going to plant one more in the middle and call it the millennial or something. It'll be a millennial or a hundred years. But you know, we know that's not a thing. But we are waiting across the threshold of having developed this sufficiently to kind of meet the goals of everyone in the imagined or thought on promises and promises at the time. And I don't know the answers to those questions. So that's kind of where we're planning right now. So I think that you summarized as well, I don't know, four or five minutes ago, John, where you said I think we're at the point where we need to close the hearing and deliver. And there's clarifying message. It's been heard, John, or your concerns have been heard. I think we all kind of understand more different perspectives and positions. And thanks for the other members, but I'm going to ask for the last comment and close it as somebody strongly opposes that path. Chris and Sergey? I have a comment too. Is there anything else that I would like to add? I don't want to take the chair's position because it seems like, you know, John, there's a disagreement on the approach to a large open space in the middle versus something that's fully activated, potentially with a focal point. And I guess that's what I was down to, whether that's a necessary element to meet the 5-9 criteria or whether it's simply a differing point of view on the other. That's really why I wanted to hit you. It's either you or I do. Do you have any final questions? Go ahead, John. Any last questions? Okay. That's done now. Yeah, it's showing NDI on the screen for the video feed. Yeah, we can start going. You just won't see us for a moment, but we can hear you. Thank you. This is Yay. Four in favor. None opposed. 100 refusal. Motion carries. Is there a motion for DVDs for 9-0 and 9-23? Yes. As authorized by just the DVDs, 6.6.3. I, John Hummelhardt, move that the Wilson's Development View Board have understood the applications submitted in all company materials, including the recommendation to the town staff and the advisory board to require your comment on this application by the Wilson's Development View Board, and having heard or duly considered the testimony presented in the public hearing on November 9, 2021, accept the finding of the fact that the conclusions were blocked with EP 0901.23 and approved the discretionary permit subject and conditions of approval, but this approval authorized the applicant to file a final plan to obtain approval of these plans for staff and then seek an administrative permit in the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance to the plans in which this approval is based. We are going to meet staff here in a moment. We are going to clarify a couple of points under the conclusions of the law. Number three, it will read the order of park adjacent to the building, to building H does not uphold the broken management score of 67 points. Number four will read that the neighborhood park area is about to play areas and walk the path does uphold the broken management score. And number five under the park adjacent to building H does fulfill of the TZV-59 criteria for urban parks. We are going to add, let's just go right through this. Number nine, we're going to strike the substatement A from that criteria or from that definition. The condition number 10 will add an A which says final plans must include additional landscape screening between the dumpster enclosure and tortoise lane bike path for WVV 18 and 23. Number 11, condition number 11, we will add an B on that which says final plans must include a minimum of six additional short-term parking spaces near the southwest corner of the park convened to the bike path. And finally, we are going to add condition number 21 and final plan shall include the figures to the park to add elements that activate the central area and provide a defining feature of the process. And then the last of the modifications is the motion which I read incorrectly. We are going to require the final plan to be approved by the DRB so that the final paragraph of the motion is actually going to read this approval, authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval of these plans, and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development which must be the strict requirements of the plan for this approval to be based. Those are the background there and I think it's clear. Should it say obtain approval of these plans from DRB to switch out staff to DRB? I think that would make it more clear. So you want me to read that since that paragraph again in motion? Yes. So the motion will read that at the end, this approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval of these plans from the DRB, and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development which must be the strict requirements of the plan for this approval to be based. Great. Thank you, John. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Any further discussion? No. Okay. Yay or nay? Paul Richardson. Yay. John Humphrey. Yay. Scott Riley. Q's himself. David Turner. Yay. E.T. Kelly. Yay. Ford Taylor. Not opposed. One more to use. Motion carries. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of October 21st today? Yes. So the minutes of October 26th constitute the DRB's written decision, including the conditions of the approval for DDP 20-13. Approval of the minutes will make a decision official. Stabilize the DRB to amend the minutes by removing conditions number 2A1 and number 21 for DDP 20-13 and approve the minutes as amended. Okay. So there is an amendment for the minutes as written. As Dave just described. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Okay. Paul Richardson. Any further discussion? No. Okay. Your approval of the days of Paul Richardson. Hi. John Humphrey. Hi. Dave Turner. Hi. Bob Steng. Because I was not present. Ford Taylor. Not opposed. One more to use. Motion carries. Is there any other business in front of the DRB this time? Could we get a head count for November 23rd? That's the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. I will be missing. I'll be in soon. Okay. Are there any items on the agenda that are necessitated for use? There might be. Me. Yeah. What's on that agenda? The two trinities. No, it's the Trinity Baptist Church. Right. So trinities and then there's an old-stage road appeal. And Taft Corners Associates is getting continued again. So just Trinity Baptist Church property. So Scott, is this senior housing? No. Senior housing is going to be on December 14th. Yep. Finally. Correct. Wow. We're busy here, Paul. Yeah. We were busy. Right over there. Yeah. The other item on December 14th is also Riley Cohen Partnership, LLC 156 Avenue B. Oh, there's another one I can give you my telephone. So you won't, we won't see that. No problem. It's just a spectacular. Well, okay. So the good news is that the next November meeting, we have at least four people that have indicated they can make it. So we'll have a forum. When's the select board meeting? When we get to the member. So far, there's one applicant. I think Eric's waiting to see if anybody else supplies and hopefully there'll be a hearing soon. If you guys know of anybody that you would think would be a good fit, you guys are welcome to reach out to people. We as staff can't do that. I think it's still open until filled. Okay. Mm-hmm. Bye, man. And when we were doing the Tuesday before Thanksgiving, we don't know what Saladin status is either. No, no. He might be around. One question. This is the stuff that the church is doing. Is that going to be taxable property now? If it changes hands to a private entity, yes, it would be taxable property. But what happens if the church decides to run it? So if the church were to run it, you know, like, so in the case, I said we're talking about Trinity Baptist, not us as allies. Yeah. You know, Trinity Baptist has some staff in town, like for most of the guys, so it would stay in the ownership of the church similar to the dormitory system and the theological cemetery down where they're hired to be. So I am not a total expert when something processes over the property tax threshold that generally anything owned by a church is exact. But if you, you know, if you're a private citizen and you buy a house out of Trinity Baptist subdivision, you're paying taxes on that. And this is, you know, I did this in quite a bit of fall. You know, can the church act as it's available and then at least the price, you know, at least the money generated by it? I have a serious problem with that. Well, I do. I mean, I don't think that would put a church in competition with, you know, developers who are paying taxes on them. They're not. Absolutely. And I just think that if you be owned by the Knights of Columbus who's tax-free, that's a lot of money. You know who owns it now, don't you? Or did it for a while? Latter-day Saints bought it from the Knights of Columbus. Yep. I love it. I know who owns it. Well, I'll just go and show you that you should root for the Knights of Columbus.